Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
We welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. We also welcome the announcement on the formation of the new Syrian Government. The UK stands ready to support an inclusive, stable and prosperous future for the people of Syria. We will continue to encourage inclusive governance and will work with the Syrian Government to that end.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. The fall of Assad was rightly welcomed by all Members of this House, but reports of mass killings of Christians and Alawites, which have now resulted in more than 1,500 civilian deaths, show that Syria is still a very unstable country. Will the Secretary of State therefore outline what support is being given to the new Syrian Government to prevent further violence and another appalling refugee crisis?
Mr Lammy
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are following steps closely. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will be meeting civil society groups today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) will know that we have allocated £160 million to support recovery and stability through lifesaving and other such assistance. Clearly, the recent violence was incredibly horrific and alarming. We will continue to work with the new Government as best we can to ensure that we get the inclusive political transition that we all want to see.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will know that this is a five-year draft constitution. Does he share my concern that the legislative, Executive and judicial separation of powers in it need to be beefed up? The appointment of the new Government appears, prima facie, to be inclusive, but does he agree that the people’s committee also needs to be inclusive given that it will be mostly appointed by the President?
Mr Lammy
Clearly, it is welcome that the new Government have moved in this direction. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise our skills in governance and in working with allies and partners, and we will use that strength to help to support the new Government. We are aware of his concerns and we will work with the new Government to get that better separation that he wants.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The UK-Mauritius treaty, which enables the continued operation of the base on Diego Garcia, is still subject to finalisation and signature. Financial obligations arising from the agreement, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework, including through the upcoming spending review.
Joe Robertson
Oh dear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not the answer to the question that I asked. Perhaps the Minister has brought the wrong file with him. My question was very simple and it is one to which the British people deserve an answer. The Government are planning to give away sovereign British territory along with billions of pounds to Mauritius. The money was not referred to in the spring statement or in the Budget. Where is it coming from?
Stephen Doughty
I have answered questions on that matter a number of times in this House. This Government will not scrimp on security. The base on Diego Garcia will be secured for ourselves and our allies. Protecting the British people and our allies is our No. 1 priority, and full details will be provided in due course.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Government have finally admitted to front-loading payments to Mauritius for their surrender deal, caving in to Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s demands since he took office in November. Yet they still refuse to disclose the amount or clarify which budgets will cover the lease, economic partnership and Chagossian trust fund. Why the secrecy? Will the Minister disclose the details now? Will he also confirm whether the statement from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct in saying that concessions have been made, including the loss of sovereign rights on Diego Garcia and of unilateral lease renewal provisions? When will this horrific deal finally come to Parliament, and what time will be provided to debate it? Or, better still, why does the Minister not dump the deal completely and keep Chagos British?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member neglects to remind the House that it was his Government who started negotiations on this matter, because they recognised that our national security interests and those of our allies were under threat. A financial element was crucial to protecting the operation of that crucial base. Once the treaty is signed, and after ratification in the usual way, it will be put before both Houses for scrutiny, and it will of course include costs. The Government will not scrimp on our security. Protecting the British people is our No. 1 priority.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UK’s diplomatic estate directly supports the delivery of this Government’s missions. Maintenance of the diplomatic estate, with an emphasis on safety and security for staff and visitors, has been a core priority for the Department during ongoing discussions with the Treasury about the spending review.
Edward Morello
The maintenance and upkeep of the 6,000 properties that constitute the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s overseas estate is estimated to cost £250 million a year. In recent years, that has been funded through the sale of assets. Drawdown on the receipts of those sales is due to run out either this year or next, and the Department has previously made it clear that there is no more family silver to sell. My question to the Minister is this: what conversations have been had with the Treasury about a long-term sustainable funding model for the estate, and if the Treasury is not forthcoming with the money, what cuts does the Department intend to make?
Catherine West
After the fire sale of assets by the former Government in 2010, the FCDO has been focusing on how to make good its estate. Now that that money is exhausted, the FCDO has developed a new estates prioritisation tool to ensure that finite resources are targeted at places of greatest need and weighted towards mitigating health and safety and security risks.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina is key to maintaining peace and security there. Although the UK does not contribute to the mission, we are committed to supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina through NATO and our bilateral defence co-operation, and we are open to exploring enhanced co-operation with the EU, including through operations and missions as we strengthen the UK-EU security and defence relationship, including in the western Balkans.
James MacCleary
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the Conservative Government previously withdrew from the EUFOR peacekeeping force—Operation Althea—in 2020, following their botched Brexit deal, letting our allies down. Will the Minister consider recommitting British troops to Operation Althea, as other third countries have, such as Turkey, to show our European allies that we want to work together and to demonstrate our continued focus on the region?
Stephen Doughty
I think the hon. Member heard what I said a moment ago. We regularly engage with EUFOR and the EU delegation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, I co-convened a call with Quint members and EU institutions on Friday with my French counterpart, and we are working closely on these very serious matters. We are also supporting security in Bosnia through our bilateral contributions, including our staff officers in the NATO HQ in Sarajevo.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and harm the prospects of a two-state solution. On 21 March, the UN Security Council made clear that we oppose any attempt to expand settlements in the west bank. I have been very clear with Israeli Ministers that they must clamp down on settler violence and end settler expansion.
Lewis Atkinson
On Saturday night, the Israeli Government announced the approval of an expanded road network in the E1 corridor of the west bank with the stated aim of supporting the development of illegal Israeli settlements in the area. That area is critical to the territorial integrity of a future Palestinian state. Previously, unified international pressure has restrained the Israeli Government, so can the Foreign Secretary say how the Government are working with their allies to exert maximum influence on Israel in this matter?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I condemn categorically the development of settlements that are illegal under international law. Settlements do not offer security to Israel or to Palestinians. I also condemn calls to annex the west bank, which would lead only to violence and jeopardise prospects for a Palestinian state. I am clear with Israeli counterparts that settlement expansion must stop. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure prospects for a Palestinian state.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
We have heard Secretary of State after Secretary of State condemn the increase in settlements and settler violence in the west bank over the last 30 or 40 years and it has made not the slightest bit of difference to their expansion. When will the Foreign Secretary accept that the only thing that the Israelis will respond to—we should not forget that these settlements are sponsored by the Israeli state—is action? When can we expect more sanctions, particularly on violent settlers and their organisations? When can we expect a full trade ban on settlement produce? In particular, will the Secretary of State consider proscribing those settler organisations that are perpetrating terrorism on an innocent Palestinian population?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that there is a cross-party position, and successive Ministers of both political parties have condemned expansion and condemned violence. We continue to work with partners across Europe and beyond on these issues. I do not say that it is easy. He will know that I announced sanctions back in October, and we continue to keep these issues under review, but the culture of impunity for those engaged in violence is intolerable. I remember just a few months ago sitting with Bedouins who had experienced that violence and were being subjected to that expansion—it is horrendous. That is why in both the UN and our dialogue with the Israeli Government we are clear that that harms the prospects of peace and security for Israel; it does not further its ambitions.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The scenes coming out of Palestine recently have been nothing short of shocking. Hundreds have been killed in settler violence in the west bank, the brutal torture of Palestinians in Israeli custody is commonplace and the collapse of the ceasefire means that the devastation and human suffering in Gaza has simply continued. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department has received any evidence showing that international law has been violated? Will he share such evidence and his assessment openly?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. She will know that, in a sober and measured way, the Government had to make our own decision on the exports licensing regime, which was put in place by the last Government, and we assessed that there was a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law. Therefore, we have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza. That is a decision that Ministers have made from this Dispatch Box under different Governments.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Earlier this year, I visited the west bank with colleagues in the Chamber as part of a parliamentary delegation, where I saw the awful Israeli illegal violence in Hebron and Susya. We ran into two Israeli settlers who clearly wanted us off the area that they had burned down. Will the Foreign Secretary go further than he has in condemning that violence by agreeing to full sanctions and an embargo on all Israeli illegal settlements? Owing to the position of the City of London, that could have a profound impact and stop the violence.
Mr Lammy
I should make it clear that settlement goods do not benefit from any free trade arrangements that we have with Israel. Obviously, on 15 October, I announced new sanctions targeting three illegal settler outposts and four organisations that have supported the sponsored violence against communities in the west bank.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Government are tackling the asylum backlog at record pace so that we can work towards ending the use of hotels and ensure that more of our ODA budget is spent on our development priorities globally. Detailed decisions on how the ODA budget will be allocated are being worked through as part of the ongoing spending review.
Noah Law
The British public increasingly feel that development aid has sadly lost its clarity of purpose. While I accept that there are multiple objectives behind aid, and that of course lifting the world’s poorest out of poverty has long been at the heart of the FCDO’s mission, a reset in the social contract around development aid is clearly needed. What consideration has the Minister given to shaping development policy that explicitly addresses the upstream determinants of mass migration?
Stephen Doughty
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. Our development efforts, as the Foreign Secretary has said, have never just been about the aid budget. Peace and security, effective governance, access to private investment, remittance flows, efficient tax systems and access to trade opportunities are all essential foundations for development. That requires us to mobilise the full force of different resources and expertise across Government, our businesses and in universities, science and beyond.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that rather than being used to meet in-donor refugee costs, the official development assistance budget should prioritise tackling extreme poverty? It is now a year since the OECD development assistance committee’s mid-term review, which showed that the UK had only made good progress on two of the 10 recommendations since the 2020 peer review. What progress has the FCDO made over the last 12 months in better meeting the committee’s guidance?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady asks about important matters around spending on in-donor refugee costs. Thanks to the measures taken by the Home Secretary to reduce the asylum backlog and work towards exiting costly asylum hotels, we expect overall ODA spending on asylum to have been lower in 2024 than in 2023. There will always be some unpredictability, but we expect the actions to continue reducing in-donor refugee costs in this Parliament.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Decisions on how ODA will be used will be considered as part of the ongoing spending review. Reducing the overall size of the budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of our work. I can say, however, that our important work and support for Gavi is immunising 300 million children and saving up to 8 million lives, and our £1 billion pledge to the Global Fund for 2023-25 is supporting prevention and treatment for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and will help to save over 1 million lives.
David Davis
I agree with the Minister on what he just said, but Gavi says that the changing policy will mean that 37.9 million fewer children will be immunised, which means that over five years, 600,000 will die. How on earth does he live with himself with that policy?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect, the right hon. Gentleman will know my record on these important issues, having advocated for them over many years in this place and outside. I do not accept his characterisation. Decisions have not yet been taken; they are being taken as part of the spending review. He will know that the UK is one of the largest donors to Gavi. We have committed £1.65 billion in the current strategic period up to 2025 and that will make an important impact on children’s lives around the world.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Gavi was created very much with the UK as a driving force. It is one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It has immunised almost 2 billion people in the world, and not only is it saving lives but it is important for jobs and work here in the UK in our fantastic life sciences sector. Will the Minister give a commitment that we will continue to be a leading force in Gavi at the replenishment in June?
Stephen Doughty
The Foreign Secretary has been discussing these important issues with the Health and Social Care Secretary. My hon. Friend is right to point out the important role of Gavi, as well as our role in that. The decisions will be set out in due course, but I hear what she and, indeed, other hon. and right hon. Members are saying on this important issue.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is very clear from Ministers’ answers that we still have no indication about which programmes and where will be affected by the planned reductions to ODA and from when exactly the cuts will be effective. We are told to wait for the spending review, but many organisations, including those tackling infectious diseases, are left to face uncertainty and to work at risk. Will the Minister tell us what instructions have been issued to his Department’s humanitarian aid programmes about what they are expected to do between now and the spending review in June?
Stephen Doughty
We clearly have difficult decisions to make, but the FCDO is not pausing all ODA programming and not creating a cliff edge in this year. We are focusing on ensuring that every pound will be spent in the most impactful way in the new context. That is a very difficult decision, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have set out. We will set out the details in due course, but we are listening closely to Members in this House and, indeed, to the many partners and stakeholders we work with on these important issues.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The memorandum of understanding—as you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, having signed off on it in 2024—is an agreement to create a policy framework that promotes good environmental, social and governance practices in critical minerals, mining and processing. I was able to visit Indonesia in January specifically to raise concerns about human rights in Papua with the senior Minister for human rights.
Alex Sobel
In 2018, President Joko Widodo promised the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that he would be allowed to visit West Papua. No visit has yet been facilitated by Indonesia, although two High Commissioners have been and gone. Without such a visit, it is impossible to assess the real human rights situation. Will the Minister ensure that the UK does not engage in critical minerals extraction in West Papua before such a visit takes place?
Catherine West
The UK continues to support the visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and, through initiatives such as the voluntary principles on security and human rights, and the UK-Indonesia critical minerals MOU—signed off by you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Government promote best practice on sustainability and respect for human rights.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the Minister has been raising human rights concerns with the Government of Indonesia about critical minerals. Would she perhaps have a word with her colleague the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about the human rights concerns over other critical minerals conversions in China? It is going into a green energy economy that is supposed to have environmental, social and governance accords, yet somehow or other it fails on all of those: it fails because of its coal-powered production, it fails because its products are made by socially undesirable slave labour—I hope she agrees about that—and it fails on governance because there is no oversight. Will she have those same conversations within her own Government?
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise those pressing concerns, and all will be revealed when the China audit comes forward with the specifics on his question.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am deeply concerned about the resumption of hostilities in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary and I are pressing all parties to return urgently to dialogue and to implement the ceasefire agreement in full. Since the renewed outbreak of hostilities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, EU High Representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. We have also been working with our French, German and Italian partners in support of the Arab plan for the reconstruction of Gaza as part of wider peace building efforts.
Ellie Chowns
It is often said that actions speak louder than words. The Government have repeatedly condemned what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, yet Israeli settler violence, Israeli settlement expansion, the unlawful demolition of Palestinian homes and violence in Gaza are continuing. Given that UK diplomatic efforts and condemnations are being so roundly ignored, will the UK now take action and ban the importation of products from illegal settlements on illegally occupied land, to give the signal that Israel cannot break international law with complete impunity?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady will know the importance that we have placed on international law since we came to power in July. We have been clear throughout this period that we want to see a ceasefire in Gaza. We regret that, at this point, we are still in disagreement with the Israeli Government, and we regret the scenes of the last few weeks in relation to the west bank and to Gaza. In relation to settlement goods, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier and as I have said before, different provisions exist for illegal settlements, which we consider to be illegal and which do not benefit from any of the provisions that would otherwise cover goods from Israel.
Dr Ahmed
Over the past week, I have been in touch with medical colleagues on the ground in Gaza and also with representatives of hostage families in Israel. In Gaza, they corroborate the worrying UN reports of a shallow grave containing the bodies of 15 paramedics and rescue workers, seemingly shot one by one by the Israeli army, some of them still wearing the surgical gloves that they were using to save the lives of others. In Israel, hostage families feel increasingly distant from their own Government and abandoned by them. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but Israel is an ally. As a critical friend and ally, what further steps can we take to reinforce our message that the Israeli Government’s current trajectory is destructive for peace and, indeed, for their own interests?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to ask this question. I know that he, himself a surgeon, has been closely engaged with the medical situation in Gaza and the incredible bravery of those who provide that assistance. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), the scenes in Gaza in relation to aid workers and, of course, the Gazan civilians themselves are absolutely horrific. It is why with France we called a special session of the UN Security Council on Friday, and we will continue to press with all diplomatic levers to see an improvement.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What assessment have the Government made of reports that Iran is considering pre-emptive strikes against American B-2 Spirit bombers that have recently been forward-located in Diego Garcia?
Mr Falconer
As the House will understand, I will not provide a detailed commentary on that reporting, but we remain deeply conscious of the potential threats from Iran, both in this country and in the region. We continue to have dialogue with the Iranian Government—the Foreign Secretary spoke to his equivalent just last week. We treat these matters with the utmost seriousness, as the right hon. Member would expect.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Like many, I was extremely alarmed to hear the Israeli Defence Minister, Israel Katz, threaten the “total destruction” of Gaza. The UK and its allies are committed to a two-state solution, but that only works if there is a state left standing for Palestinians. Will that Minister ever be sanctioned, and will our Minister set out what role he sees the UK playing in the long-term reconstruction of Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I know how attentive to these issues she has been. The Foreign Secretary has condemned in this Chamber the comments of Defence Minister Katz, and this Government are clear what the path to reconstruction in Gaza must be. We have engaged closely with our partners in the Arab world, we welcome their plan for reconstructing Gaza, and we will continue to do all we can to see that as the path to reconstruction, with dignity for the Palestinian people of Gaza.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Today is the anniversary of the killing of the 33-year-old ex-Royal Marine James Henderson, who was killed by the Israelis among seven aid workers with the World Central Kitchen. A year later, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) has mentioned, mass graves have been found with eight bodies of those who worked for the Red Crescent and the Red Cross. That comes two weeks after eight aid workers from the Al-Khair Foundation were killed. It is believed that 1,500 aid workers have been killed. Does the Minister believe that it is illegal under international law to kill aid workers and, if so, what is he prepared to do about it?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to comment. Today is indeed the one-year anniversary of the appalling strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy, which killed seven people, including British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby. I would like to pay tribute to their bravery and remember again the appalling tragedy of that day. I, alongside the Foreign Secretary, met their families in November. They are determined to see justice for their family members, and I know that the whole Chamber will be united in that determination. Israel’s Military Advocate General must quickly and thoroughly conclude their consideration of the strike, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. As the hon. Gentleman has said, Gaza is now the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker. This cannot continue.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
As others have said, today is the anniversary of the deaths of James Kirby, John Chapman and James Henderson—three former servicemen. We further heard about the 15 aid workers who were killed last week. UN Under-Secretary-General Tom Fletcher has described them as having been killed one by one and buried in shallow graves alongside their clearly marked ambulances, fire trucks and UN vehicles. I thank the Government for calling a UN Security Council meeting on the protection of aid workers. Will the Minister update us on the outcome of that meeting and the further steps we will take to protect aid workers in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
The meeting on Friday considered those questions. There was agreement across the Security Council on the importance of preserving the space for humanitarian action. As I have said this morning, we regret deeply that there have not yet been further improvements, and we will continue to use all available diplomatic steps to ensure that aid gets into Gaza, aid workers are protected, and the horrific scenes described by the emergency relief co-ordinator are not repeated.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Our thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Hamas captivity in Gaza and with their families. What recent contact has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel, America and our partners in the region to secure their release and broker a way through this impasse? What steps are being taken across Government to address the threats to stability posed by Iran? How does the Minister envisage the removal of Hamas from the governance of Gaza?
Mr Falconer
On the shadow Foreign Secretary’s important first point, we are, as she would expect, in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week. I have been in regular contact with the Qataris, who are doing important work in this file. As she would expect, we continue to be in touch with the hostage families, whose concern I know the Chamber continues to share.
On the threats posed by Iran, we speak to the relevant players in the region and to the E3. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister last week and underlined that we continue to support a diplomatic resolution to the tensions with Iran. We do not want to see Iran secure a nuclear weapon. We believe that a diplomatic solution is the best way to achieve that, but we will hold the snap-back of sanctions, and indeed many other measures, under review until we are satisfied.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is leading international efforts to keep up the pressure on Russia through more than 2,200 sanctions, which have helped to reduce Russia’s oil revenue by 25% between January and November 2024 compared with two years prior. We are of course also working hard to co-ordinate allies. Just yesterday I was in Madrid discussing these issues with European counterparts, and later this week I will be at the NATO Foreign Ministers conference, where the Ukrainians will be as well.
Andrew Ranger
I am incredibly proud that, since the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Wrexham has welcomed many Ukrainian families. Among them are Yaroslav and Oksana, who had long dreamed of opening a café in their home town of Chortkiv. Despite the war preventing them from realising that dream at home, they now own a thriving business on Wrexham High Street. How are the Government continuing to support Ukrainian families who play a big part in communities across Britain, as well as those who, at some point in the future, may wish to return to Ukraine when the situation allows?
Mr Lammy
I am proud that the British people across our country have opened their homes and their hearts to Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s brutal war. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has helped more than 160,000 Ukrainians to find refuge here, and since 4 February, Ukrainian refugees can apply to remain for an additional 18 months while continuing to receive vital support.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
As the Foreign Secretary knows, we have substantial engagement with, and deployment to, Estonia. Talk of peace in Ukraine is of course welcome and Britain should play its role in supporting that peace, but does he accept that any deployment of British troops to Ukraine increases the risk to the UK and its forces in Estonia?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman should know that the UK’s commitment to the security of Estonia is iron-clad, and made real by our NATO forward land forces deployment. Discussions regarding how our military can support Ukraine’s future security arrangements are ongoing, including with NATO allies and Secretary-General Rutte. Part of the discussion for countries committed to the coalition of the willing is about ensuring that those countries on the frontline are not left without adequate support. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The whole House continues to stand united with the people of Ukraine in their existential struggle. Although there has been much coverage of tentative steps towards a Black sea ceasefire, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, with the brutal war raging on land, we must continue to constrain Putin’s war machine with every tool at our disposal? Could he update us on his plans for doing so beyond sanctions? Does he agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove whether he is in any way serious about the kind of lasting and just peace that President Zelensky wants to see?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady should know that, with EU colleagues yesterday, at the G7 a few weeks ago and, I am sure, with colleagues as I head to NATO, we are discussing an oil cap in particular and how that would limit Putin’s reserves. We continue to discuss not just the freezing of assets but the seizing of assets. We recognise that some European colleagues are more exposed than we in the UK are. Nevertheless, why should we use taxpayers’ money? We should use Russian money that has caused so much damage in Ukraine. Of course, we continue to look at the arsenal of sanctions that we can use, and I am sure that I will have more to say on that in the coming weeks.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Of all the horrors that Vladimir Putin has inflicted on Ukraine, the abduction of more than 20,000 Ukrainian children is one of the most vile. It threatens to rob Ukraine of its future, which is surely Putin’s ultimate goal. The Prime Minister praised the work of Kyiv’s Bring Kids Back initiative last week. Will the Foreign Secretary now commit to the UK filling the funding gap left by the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of funding for Yale’s humanitarian research lab, so that it can continue to research Russia’s war crimes, especially to track the whereabouts of these children, so that they can be brought back home?
Mr Lammy
It was important for me to meet Madam Zelensky to discuss this issue when I was last in Ukraine. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), also met the relevant Minister in Ukraine to discuss this issue just a few days ago. I can absolutely give an undertaking to continue to support the group. It is not our assessment that we can meet the shortfall left by the withdrawal of USAID—United States Agency for International Development—funding, but we will continue to work with partners across Europe on this important issue, which is very personal to me.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Aid should never be used as a political tool. As the Foreign Secretary made clear to the House on 20 March, blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. Israel must allow aid into Gaza immediately. The Foreign Secretary made that clear to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 21 March and issued a joint statement with his French and German counterparts on 5 March. Gaza is the deadliest place in the world to be an aid worker. More than 400 aid workers have been killed in the conflict. Restoring the ceasefire remains the best chance to see hostages released, allow a surge of humanitarian aid and bring this bloodshed to an end.
Wendy Chamberlain
It is clear from the Chamber this morning that we all despair at the recent breakdown of the ceasefire agreement, the resumption of hostilities and the blockade of aid into Gaza. We now have warnings of an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in the Gaza strip, which is hard to imagine after what we have already seen there. The Minister mentioned the conversations that have been had with Israel. First, can he assure me that we are making it clear that the only way we will achieve a lasting peace is through a two-state solution, which will not achieved by subjecting people to such hardship? Secondly, what conversations are ongoing with allies about restoring aid drops directly into Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that we say regularly to our Israeli counterparts, and indeed to all others in the region, that the only route out of these horrors is a two-state solution, an outcome that provides for the safety, security and dignity of both peoples. We are talking with our partners about what might be done to try to ensure aid gets into Gaza through whatever means are at our disposal, but at the core, Israel must relax the restrictions and allow aid into Gaza. That is the way to get the scale of aid that is required into the strip. During the ceasefire, we saw a massive increase in aid, and that is what we want to do.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
With continued aerial bombardments impacting the flow of aid into Gaza, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether UK-made F-35 parts have been used to enable air strikes in Gaza since 18 March?
Mr Falconer
To clarify my previous answer, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 5 March, not 21 March.
In response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), we will continue to press these issues with the Israeli Government. It is clear to the House that we have not succeeded, over these long months, in ensuring the level of aid into Gaza that we would like to see, or had the protections for humanitarian workers that we want to see. Deconfliction, with humanitarian aid workers, is a vital part of ensuring their security, and we are pressing the Israelis to do so.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The United Kingdom is committed to promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law, and the right to self-determination is set out in the international covenant on civil and political rights.
Alex Mayer
Some 700,000 people in Washington DC are currently disenfranchised because their representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives do not have voting rights or full control of local government affairs. It is the equivalent of everyone in Bedfordshire voting for MPs who have no chance of going through the voting Lobby. Does the Minister agree that that is a particularly strange anomaly?
Stephen Doughty
This is not a matter for us. The United States is a sovereign, democratic nation, and the issue of voting rights in the District of Columbia is a matter for the United States.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
In the interests of self-determination, will the Foreign Secretary take the earliest opportunity to remind his opposite number in the United States that Canada has chosen to be a member state of the Commonwealth, that the Head of the Commonwealth and the Head of State of Canada is His Majesty King Charles, and that there is no prospect whatsoever of Canada being annexed by the United States?
Stephen Doughty
Canada is a strong friend and Commonwealth ally. It is a NATO ally and a fellow G7 member. I have strong ties with Canada myself, as the right hon. Gentleman might know. I was delighted to reiterate our friendship when I met my ministerial counterpart the other week; Prime Minister Carney, the new Canadian Prime Minister, was welcomed by the Prime Minister; and in recent weeks, the Foreign Secretary has been meeting with his counterpart. We continue to work strongly with Canada on many global issues.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
We are concerned at the expansion of the Government of Israel’s war aims and operations in the west bank. I made clear my serious concerns on the continuing Israeli operations when I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar on 5 March, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said, but also on 21 March. We are clear that civilians must be protected and the destruction of civilian infrastructure minimised.
Vikki Slade
It emerged today that a 17-year-old Palestinian boy who had been taken from the west bank has died in Israeli detention, having been held for 6 months without charge. Israel has been striking inside the west bank, and in doing so emboldening illegal settlers in their own violence. Given that Israel claims that it is targeting Hamas and not the people of Palestine itself, what specific actions is the Foreign Secretary taking to protect Palestinians in the west bank from both settler violence and Israeli forces?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady will know that we are giving considerable support to the Palestinian Authority in the west bank. We are in regular contact with President Abbas and Prime Minister Mustafa in relation to the west bank. She has heard our concerns about both the violence and the expansion that is taking place in the west bank. In my conversations with Ministers, I have heard legitimate concerns about security on the Israeli side and the way that Iran, sitting behind the scenes, is equipping some terrorist groups with guns and ammunition. We have to do our best to support Israel in standing up to that.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s commitment to host an international meeting this year in support of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace has never been more timely. Given the upcoming June summit in Paris in support of a two-state solution, can the Foreign Secretary provide for the House an update on progress towards meeting the Prime Minister’s pledge?
Mr Lammy
We are very grateful for the work that our French colleagues are doing in this regard, and we are working closely with them. We are putting together a plan, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, will be able to update the House in the coming weeks.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Foreign Secretary spoke with his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts on 19 and 21 March respectively, and I have also been in contact with representatives of both countries. We warmly welcome the progress made by both sides on concluding negotiations on the text of a peace agreement, and we urge them both to sign that agreement as soon as possible. We encourage all sides to refrain from rhetoric or actions that undermine the prospects for peace.
Jessica Morden
This is clearly a critical time for peace in the region. The offensive by Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh resulted in the forced displacement of up to 120,000 Armenians and the continued detention of 23 officials and civilians. There is much concern about the conduct of the trials, their welfare and their access to legal support, so what more can the Minister do to put pressure on the Government of Azerbaijan to look for their release and to get access to the prisoners?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for her important work on these issues. The UK has consistently called for the release of all the remaining prisoners of war. We continue to urge the Azerbaijani authorities to ensure that those detained during the long-standing conflict with Armenia are afforded a fair trial and provided safe conditions. I raised that specifically with the Azerbaijani President’s special representative in October, and we continue to engage with them on this issue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday was the anniversary of the attempted genocide of the Azerbaijani people by the Armenians, and I am sure the whole House will issue its condolences for that purpose. In the newly liberated territories of Nagorno-Karabakh, hundreds of mines are still being cleared by hand. What action will the Government offer to support Azerbaijan in removing those mines so that the land can be used for beneficial purposes?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the issue of mines. He will know the important role that this country has played in de-mining efforts around the world. I am very happy to write to him with the details of where we are on that in relation to Azerbaijan, and we have discussed that with them on a number of occasions. The most important thing is that we continue to work towards the signing of that peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia so that the people of those two countries, with which we have strong relationships, can live in peace and harmony alongside one another.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put to Parliament for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way.
Mr Bedford
Given that there is no binding legal basis for the ceding of the Chagos islands and that the deal will cost the hard-pressed British taxpayer north of £9 billion, £18 billion or possibly £50 billion a year, will the Secretary of State confirm what total financial liabilities will be brought to the UK and whether they will be funded from the uplift in the defence budget announced in the spring statement?
Stephen Doughty
I have answered those questions on a number of occasions, including earlier. I have been very clear that a financial element is crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base for our security and for the security of our allies. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the Houses for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security: protecting our interests and those of our allies is the most important thing.
Dr Spencer
Politics is about choices, and the speculation about how much the Government want to hand over to Mauritius starts at £9 billion. That money would go a long way as official development assistance, so does the Minister regret that choice?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, a financial element—let us remember that this is over 99 years—was crucial to protect the operation of the base. If we do not pay for our security, somebody else might attempt to get in there. That is one crucial reason we have worked closely with Mauritius, the United States and other allies and partners, including India, to protect our base on Diego Garcia.
Stephen Doughty
I can hear the chuntering from the shadow Minister, but it is simply not correct—we are protecting Diego Garcia, our interests there and our national security. I am afraid that I simply do not accept what he is saying, and of course, if there was not a problem, why did his Government start the negotiations in the first place?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Yesterday in Madrid, I discussed with counterparts strengthening Ukraine’s hand. With Mr Speaker in Kyiv yesterday, the House is united on Ukraine.
One year on from the appalling Israel Defence Forces strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy that killed James Kirby, John Chapman and James Henderson, I am sure that the whole House mourns their loss and calls for accountability. We will keep demanding protection for all civilians and aid workers in Gaza, and will strive to restore the ceasefire, free hostages and end the war.
Munira Wilson
Research published by UNICEF shows that last time the overseas aid budget was cut, support for children—for their education and nutrition—was cut the deepest. Will the Foreign Secretary give assurances to this House that this time, children will not bear the brunt of his cuts, and will he commit to protect child-focused development programmes?
Mr Lammy
The last time that the development budget was cut, it was cut overnight. The Government abolished the Department for International Development, leading to terrible cliff edges and badly damaging our reputation in the world. We are not throwing the money that we have had to withdraw from development into a black hole, as the last Government did; we are investing in hard power. The hon. Lady will recognise that the war in Ukraine has cost the continent of Africa upwards of £7 billion. For that reason, it is important that we invest in hard power and diplomacy, and that we continue to invest in development. We will still be the sixth biggest development partner.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues, not least as a Co-operative MP. I have seen the important work that co-operatives do around the world, and we continue to support them, including by funding the global agriculture and food security programme, which has a dedicated support facility for smallholder producer organisations. We regularly meet those who are involved in co-operative solutions on a range of matters, so I would be delighted to discuss those matters with my hon. Friend and other colleagues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary gave a speech on trade, but could not explain how much growth would follow the measures he announced, if any. What role is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office actually playing in supporting the trade negotiations with the United States? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary personally undertaken about the trade agreement, and can he confirm that this will be the comprehensive trade deal that the Conservative Government were negotiating?
Mr Lammy
No, because the Conservative Government badly failed in their negotiations with the US. We are engaged in intense conversations at this time to strike an economic agreement, and we are also continuing discussions with our Indian counterparts about a trade deal and with the Gulf, picking up from the last Government’s failure to land the trade deals that will deliver growth to this country. In coming into the Foreign Office, it has been essential that I position it as the international delivery arm for growth—all our missions recognise this. I have announced measures that include working much more closely with business—measures that should have been introduced under the last Government.
Priti Patel
We know that the Labour Government continue to cosy up to the Chinese Communist party because they are desperately seeking growth. [Interruption.] Labour Members might want to listen. The Government are unwilling to stop solar panels made by Uyghur slave labour coming into the UK; they are unable to stop China putting bounties on the heads of Hongkongers living here; and they are failing to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how our economic and security interests are being served by the Labour Government’s alleged reset with the CCP Government?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady uses the phrase CCP almost as if to suggest that I am some sort of communist. The last Government had 17 different approaches to China. They bounced around so much—there was the Iain Duncan Smith position, the Rishi Sunak position and the Liz Truss position—that we lost count of how many positions they took. We have been clear that there are areas where we will co-operate with China, areas where we will challenge China and areas where we must necessarily compete. It is right that we engage with China. Closing our ears and pretending they are not there is no strategy. That is why the Government have changed from the strategy of the last Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Foreign Secretary does not need to be reminded that we reference sitting Members not by their names, but by their constituencies.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Last month, I pressed Foreign Minister Sa’ar to conclude the Military Advocate General’s consideration of the World Central Kitchen incident, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. I have met the families of those killed in the attacks and assured them that this Government will continue to support their calls for justice. Gaza is the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker, with more than 400 killed since the start of this conflict. We need to see lasting safety improvements for aid workers on the ground, and that would be a fitting legacy for those British individuals who have lost their lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents who work at the BMW Mini plant in Cowley are deeply concerned by the impact of Donald Trump’s global tariff war. The uncertainty the plant faces is made much worse by the red tape that now inhibits integrated car production with suppliers in the EU. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, in addition to a robust response to the White House, the best step that the Government could take to support British businesses would be to start talks on a bespoke UK-EU customs union without delay?
Mr Lammy
We are an open trading nation, as we have been under successive Governments. It is hugely important at this time that we continue the intense conversations we are having with the US Administration on getting an economic agreement. Of course we prepare for the worst—all options remain on the table, as the Prime Minister indicated again just yesterday—but it is also right that the Business Secretary and I, and others across Government, continue to engage with business and industry so that we can give them the best support in what will be a turbulent economic time, not just for our own country, but across much of the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Topical questions must be kept short, otherwise there will be many disappointed colleagues.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
Our strong knowledge economy is one of our best exports, and each Minister on the Front Bench makes sure to promote learning in the UK and learning in people’s home cities, when our universities have a presence, and we will continue to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Mr Lammy
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the British pint is safe under this Government, but I will write to him about the detail in the coming days.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I have regular conversations with the Business Secretary. As the Minister for Industry made clear on Thursday, this Government believe in the UK steel sector. We have prioritised engagement with British Steel, and have made a generous conditional offer of financial support. We remain in negotiations with the company and trade unions to secure the best possible outcome.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman must have missed the letter that the Home Secretary and I, quite properly, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who, acting in her quasi-judicial capacity, has a decision to make. We were clear about the fact that security interests are paramount, and we made our views very plain so that they could be considered.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Whether in Gaza, Turkey or elsewhere, it is essential for journalists to be able to do their job. We are incredibly proud of the BBC and all the other UK outlets overseas that play a vital role in holding power to account, and we will continue to support them.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. All those hostages need to come home, which is why we need to get back to the ceasefire and why we must continue to stand with hostage families. Let me reassure the hon. Lady: I spoke to the United States envoy, Steve Witkoff, on Friday evening to obtain an update on the conversations that are taking place, and Egypt and Qatar are playing an important role in getting back to that ceasefire and getting Hamas to do what they should do. It was interesting to see Palestinians taking to the streets to campaign against Hamas and the way in which that they are holding the Palestinian people ransom at this time.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
HIV/AIDS has killed 40 million people across the world and remains a major threat to public health, but over the weekend the House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority account posted a gloating, sickening tweet including an image of the coffin representing the closure of USAID, which, according to experts, will lead to a tenfold increase in the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS. Will the Minister reaffirm that notwithstanding the recklessness of the Trump Administration, this Government remain committed to working to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030?
Stephen Doughty
Obviously, USAID is a matter for the US Government. However, I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to the 2030 target. He will know, from my long time campaigning on these issues, of the importance that I, and indeed the Foreign Secretary, place on this issue.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes important points. He will know that we make important contributions to the Global Fund and other bodies on global health. We remain committed to global health as part of our development spending, even despite the difficult decisions we are having to make, and I hear what he has to say.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
More than half the countries that have submitted UN biodiversity plans have not yet released plans for how they will protect 30% of land and sea for nature, despite agreeing to do so at COP15. What steps are the Government taking to ensure more countries develop plans to protect at least 30% of land and sea?
Catherine West
The Government remain strongly committed to tackling the international climate and nature crises. The UK played a key role at the COP16 biodiversity conference, and we are working closely with a wide range of partners to build global ambition on nature ahead of London Climate Action Week in June and COP30 in Brazil.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
In February, the Foreign Secretary rightly criticised America’s aid cuts. Two weeks later, he was humiliated by his own Prime Minister when his departmental budget was smashed to bits. What is he doing to re-establish his and his Department’s credibility on the world stage, so we can once again have genuine influence internationally?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have not made an ideological decision to cut aid, and he knows that. There are other Governments around the world making ideological decisions to cut aid. This Government did not make the decision that the last Government made to switch off aid overnight. We are ensuring that there are no cliff edges. He will know—and I know he knows this—that investing in hard power also saves lives and acts as a deterrence in our own country and across much of the world.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, BBC reporter Mark Lowen was arrested and deported from Turkey after covering the ongoing protest movement, as part of a broader crackdown on journalists. This followed the arrest of President Erdoğan’s leading political rival. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to conveying the concerns of this House to his Turkish counterpart at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Lammy
The UK is a staunch supporter of democracy, the rule of law and media freedom. The Government have raised recent events in Turkey with our counterparts at a number of levels. Most recently, on 29 March I spoke to my Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, to raise our expectation that Turkey upholds its international commitments and the rule of law, and that it protects the fundamental rights to free speech, peaceful assembly and media freedom, including in the treatment of British journalists reporting there.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Are the British Government going to act, as the French and American Governments have done, to support Morocco’s autonomy plan for Western Sahara?
Mr Lammy
We continue to have discussions with our Moroccan friends. This is a complex issue. The position remains the position we had under the last Government. Of course, we keep that under review as we continue to discuss these issues in the region.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has said repeatedly that the UK should move from freezing to seizing Russian state assets, although I am still waiting to hear what proportion of those are in the UK. Meanwhile, €300 billion sits in the EU. When peace eventually comes, the rebuilding of Ukraine will need to be paid for by the Russians, so those frozen billions will be key. When I was at a security conference in Poland last week, everyone seemed to agree that these assets need to be seized. I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what are the remaining barriers to seizing those assets, and what concrete steps is he taking to ensure that he can bring our allies with us?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is a complex issue, and one on which it is best to act in concert with our closest allies, recognising that allies in Belgium, Germany and other countries in Europe are more exposed than we are. We continue to work at pace with our allies. This was an item I discussed yesterday in Madrid with the Weimar+ group, particularly with our Polish, French and Spanish colleagues, and I am sure it will be an item discussed at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting later this week.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
In the light of the Prime Minister’s announcement of the impending official development assistance cuts, how will the UK Government be a global leader on water security and climate-affected communities, to adapt and build WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—systems that are resilient to climate change?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the importance of those issues; he knows the UK has a strong record on them. Obviously, all decisions on future ODA spending will be discussed as part of the ongoing resource allocations in the spending review, but I note what he says.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On 23 March in Gaza, eight medics in the Palestinian Red Crescent, five responders from the civil defence and a UN staff member were killed by the IDF while responding to casualties. Their bodies have been returned today. International humanitarian law is clear: medical personnel, ambulances, humanitarian relief workers and civil defence organisations must be respected and protected. International humanitarian law is not something for debate. The Foreign Secretary understands the importance of upholding the law and holding to account all who breach it, including our friends, so why is Israel seemingly allowed to act with impunity when it comes to the protection of medics, humanitarian workers and civilians?
Mr Falconer
On this day, the one-year anniversary of the World Central Kitchen incident, I want to be clear that nobody has impunity and that we expect full legal processes to be followed, including in Israel. The Foreign Secretary and I have both spoken about the important role the Military Advocate General will play in that. On my hon. Friend’s wider question, it is clearly deeply problematic that deconfliction does not exist in Gaza and that aid workers continue to be in such peril, as she described. We will continue to use all methods at our disposal to try to improve the situation.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On 17 March, the Foreign Secretary told the House that there had been
“a breach of international law”
by Israel in blockading aid getting into Gaza.—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.] If he takes international law seriously, will he tell us what sanctions are in place as a result of that?
Mr Falconer
We have announced to this House a series of sanctions in relation to the risk of breaches in relation to the attacks on aid workers, which I have covered a number of times in this session. [Interruption.]
Point of Order
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After much chasing in October last year, the Foreign Secretary committed to give oral evidence to my International Development Committee early in the new year. He has not done so to date and we do not have a date in the diary, despite repeated requests from my Committee team. Can you advise me on how I can encourage the Foreign Secretary to give evidence? Much is going on in the world that we need to discuss.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial appearances before Select Committees, but I can see that the Foreign Secretary is keen to respond. No doubt he will have a positive response to her point of order right now.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just remind the House that I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 December and I will be appearing in front of the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee on 30 May. We have made changes to development, as has been discussed in the House this afternoon. My right hon. Friend Baroness Chapman will be appearing before the International Development Committee on 13 May. Of course I will appear again before the Foreign Affairs Committee and in front of my hon. Friend’s Committee in due course. I hope to do that by the end of the summer or in the September recess period.
NHS Pensions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on NHS pensions in the light of the statutory deadline for both remediable service statements and remediable pension savings statements being missed.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for asking this question, which gives me the opportunity to provide further information following the written parliamentary statement that I issued yesterday to update the House on the delivery of remediable service statements to affected members.
I have extended the deadlines for the NHS Business Services Authority to issue statements to ensure that members have enough time to make informed decisions. Once members have received statements, they will be able to use a tool provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to retrospectively adjust their annual allowance between 2015-16 and 2022-23.
Separately, the original deadline to issue the 137,000 remediable pension savings statements was 6 October. The NHS Business Services Authority issued statements to 57,000 members by this deadline, of which 23,000 were found to contain incorrect information; these have since been recalculated and reissued. The NHS Business Services Authority is working to issue outstanding statements as quickly as possible.
A revised delivery timetable has been developed and shared with trade unions and employer representatives. By the end of March, 106,000 statements had been issued. Statements for 11,000 members will be produced once further information has been received from their employers. The remaining 20,000 statements require additional manual input from the NHS Business Services Authority before they can be produced, and will be issued in July. There have been delays on all sides, which we have been aware of since last July. In fact, the Department had escalated issues of design with the previous Government, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands.
We know that this matter is really important and that there are high numbers of high earners in the NHS, which is why we have taken the decision to be open and transparent about the timeline that we can now commit to, having worked tirelessly to reduce the delays. Although these delays will cause inconvenience to some members, I have been crystal clear that no one will face any financial detriment as a consequence. Compensation arrangements are in place for direct financial losses, certain HMRC interest charges, and the costs of financial and accountancy advice.
The Government do acknowledge the impact of the delays on affected members. We are working hard to issue outstanding statements and to protect members from any financial detriment the delays may cause.
Dr Evans
What is going on with NHS pensions administration under this Government? I declare an interest as someone with an NHS pension. Today, the Government have missed the statutory deadline for issuing remediable service statements to doctors, and they are now pushing the deadlines back to December 2026. In mid-March, the Government confirmed that just 21 statements had been issued out of 380,000; as of yesterday’s written statement, there are still more than 370,000 outstanding. This creates huge tax liability uncertainties.
We and the British Medical Association have been raising concerns for months. Why has it taken the Government so long to act? Ministers have announced a revised delivery plan, but how will it work in practice? Will there be more staff to help with the backlog? What changes are being put in place to ensure that the deadline is not missed again?
What was most concerning, however, was the complete absence of any mention of the remediable pension savings statements in the written statement. This issue really matters, as doctors who are taking on overtime or who work privately rely on these statements to be able to track their contributions and avoid excessive tax bills. According to Dr Sharma from the BMA,
“There’s no doubt that without up-to-date information, doctors will be pre-emptively reducing or turning down extra work to avoid additional pension…bills that they might not even be due.”
The statutory deadline for the 137,000 statements was, as we heard, 6 October 2024. In February, Ministers confirmed that 60,000 were outstanding and that the majority would be issued by the end of February; by March, however, the backlog had actually grown to 70,000. Can the Minister explain how two legal deadlines have been missed? Will the Government be following up with the regulator to ensure that this does not happen again? Do the Government have confidence in the NHS Business Services Authority? With the Secretary of State abolishing NHS England, what does this mean for the future of this vital organisation?
We all want to see waiting lists fall, but as one newspaper put it today,
“Labour’s pledge to slash NHS waiting lists is being sabotaged by a litany of administrative errors, pension delays and punitive tax rules.”
I urge the Government to take swift action.
Karin Smyth
As I outlined in my response and in the written ministerial statement, we have taken action. We were made aware of some of these problems when we came into office in July, and we have pushed the NHS Business Services Authority to move faster than it would have done under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, so that action is happening quicker than it would have done before. We do have faith in the NHS Business Services Authority to get on with this and ensure that there is no financial detriment, in line with the timetable outlined yesterday, and as I have further made clear today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman could have asked me more about waiting lists, which have fallen for the last five months in a row. He could have asked me about the 2 million more appointments that have been provided to deliver for patients seven months early. He could have asked me about the hundreds more GPs who are now working in the health service, or the impact of cancelling the strikes on services for people, or the record funding. In fact, last week in the Chamber he spoke on behalf of the National Pharmacy Association; this week, he could have congratulated the Minister for Care, who is sitting next to me, on the agreement to produce more pharmacy services.
We are making improvements to the NHS every day. The Darzi report reported not only the breadth but the depth of the decline that we inherited. We are resolving that, and fixing the fundamentals of the NHS.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and giving her response. We all know the issues she is talking about when she mentions the state of the NHS that we inherited, and I echo that with the issues I hear about from patients and staff at Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow. On pensions, can she outline what the Government have done to mitigate the delays in the process?
Karin Smyth
It is important that people have confidence in the pension system. That is why we took action in July on coming into office to understand the depth of the problems that occurred under the previous Government. This is a complicated issue, which is why we want to be clear with people that there will be no financial detriment to them. We will continue to work with employers and trade unions to ensure that the issue is resolved as quickly as possible, in line with the timelines I have outlined.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The delays will be deeply worrying and will make financial planning very difficult for those affected, all of whom are people who have dedicated their working lives to supporting the NHS and tirelessly saving lives. NHS workers and their families are being left in the dark by Government delays and may as a result miss out on using their full allowances, which is unacceptable—they deserve better.
The revised delivery plan prioritises members based on their likelihood of facing financial detriment, so clearly some financial detriment is expected for those who are impacted. Can the Minister estimate what the likely financial detriment is of missing the statutory deadline, or how much compensation, as she just mentioned, is likely to be paid? Can she tell us why the NHS Business Services Authority has failed to meet the deadlines? In response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), the Minister said that there are 112 people working on it. Will she confirm whether that is likely to be sufficient to ensure that future deadlines are met?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do not have to hand the exact number of people working on this, but I will make sure that I respond to her on that point in writing. We are ensuring that individuals do not face detriment as a result of these delays. The NHS cost claim back compensation scheme provides resources for direct financial losses incurred by the NHS pension scheme members impacted by the McCloud remedy, including professional service fees and certain HMRC interest charges that may arise, as I outlined in my statement. HMRC has also confirmed that self-assessment late filing penalties will be waived on appeal in certain circumstances where a member receives a delayed pension savings statement as a consequence of the implementation of the McCloud remedy.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that it is important that the affected members receive those statements to allow informed decision making? The Government have worked to minimise financial detriment to those affected, but this issue is part of the mess we have been clearing up. We have had record investments into pharmacies and more GPs, and we have cut waiting lists and stopped the junior doctors’ strikes. We are on the road to recovery.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are on the road to recovery—and that, of course, is what the Opposition cannot stand. This is a complicated issue, as they well know. As I said, we inherited this complication in July, when we were made well aware of it. The Conservatives could have done more about it while they were in government, but it is yet another issue on which they have let people down—this time, it is staff.
We will ensure that we remedy that. The timelines are available in the written ministerial statement that I issued yesterday. We will continue to work with trade unions and employers to ensure that people understand. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that people do understand their own personal positions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have to say that I am none the wiser about what exactly has happened. If we are to ensure that this will not happen again—that these deadlines will be met—we need to know how we got into this position. It may well be the fault of the previous Government. Will this Government commit to a full review of exactly how we got here, so that we can ensure that the published deadlines are met this time?
Karin Smyth
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes a good point, as she so often does, about what went on previously. This is an issue from the McCloud judgment that runs across many Departments. It was a problem under previous Governments, starting with the coalition Government. I know that the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served, and the Treasury Committee have looked at the matter over time. The Department will certainly co-operate with any inquiry and investigate what happened across Government. I am happy to get back to the hon. Lady on that point.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This issue appears to be yet another example of the hangover left by the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that part of getting the NHS back on its feet includes cleaning up this mess and cutting waiting lists, which have already dropped for five months in a row?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. As I have said, Lord Darzi has helpfully outlined the breadth of the mess that we inherited back in July, and it makes for stark reading. We have still not had an apology from the Conservative party, so I am happy to take an intervention now if anybody decides to provide one. In these issues, we are seeing the depth of the destruction that the Conservatives have caused widely across Government. We will continue to fix that on behalf of the British people.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare my interest as a practising doctor and a public sector pensioner who has been through the McCloud process. Does the Minister understand that we will not improve productivity in the NHS as far as doctors are concerned if they continue to retire routinely in their mid-50s—in their prime? They do so because their accountants tell them that they would be foolish not to, given the fiscal environment and the structure of the NHS pension scheme.
Karin Smyth
I understand that point. Obviously, it is a source of much discussion. The change came about during the pandemic to encourage people to return to work, and it is a complex issue. We want to continue to use the skills of doctors at all stages of their careers, and we shall continue to work with them, the British Medical Association and others to make sure that there is no detriment to their returning to service in the NHS.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the NHS pension scheme. Can the Minister confirm that this issue arose only because the previous Government carried out their NHS pension reforms in a way that was found to be age discriminatory? More widely, does she agree that giving NHS staff the terms and conditions and the reward and recognition that they deserve also requires prompt action each year on agreeing the NHS pay award, which the Conservative party routinely failed to do when in Government?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on our commitment to staff to be clear on their terms and conditions, and our commitment to honouring that reward. That is why we acted promptly when we came into office. We have issued statements and provided answers to parliamentary questions to make sure that people are clear about the system and that we are transparent.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It takes rather a long time to train a doctor—up to six years—so it is a good job that the previous Government had the opportunity to train more doctors. Will the Minister look at one aspect of concern, which is that if doctors start reducing their overtime hours because of fiscal aspects, it will hamper the opportunity to get more patients treated and to shorten the length of waiting lists?
Karin Smyth
As I said in response to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), we understand that, and we will continue to work with all staff in the NHS to make sure that we deliver on our commitment to reduce waiting lists, which were left at a shocking level by the previous Government.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I have a constituent who is suffering both financial and emotional distress as a result of these circumstances. I wrote to the NHS Business Services Authority, and it took four months to get a response. In written questions to the Government, I have asked how I might make representations about my constituent being affected by financial distress. The response that I received from Ministers simply said that NHSBSA has all the evidence that it needs, and there is no need for anyone to provide extra evidence. There is a very real risk that some people who are affected by this are suffering financial distress but have not been identified by NHSBSA. For those people, can the Minister please outline what mechanism we as Members can use to make those people known to NHSBSA, so that they can access their pension choice earlier?
Karin Smyth
I am sorry to hear about the emotional and financial distress of the hon. Lady’s constituent. If there is a gap, I am happy to go back to the NHSBSA on her behalf and make sure that I update the House.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Does the Minister have full confidence in the chair of the NHS Business Services Authority?
Karin Smyth
As I said in my statement, we have confidence in the business authority to undertake the actions that I have outlined.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers to the questions. Waiting lists are clearly beyond the pale. If the Government were able to address the remedial pension savings statement, we might be in better position to entice our doctors to take on additional hours. Will the Minister confirm that this is a Government priority, and that there is an understanding that a functioning NHS requires straightforward paths to working overtime, and payment at every level?
Karin Smyth
One of our major priorities is ensuring that the entire NHS workforce are doing the work that they are trained and committed to do, so that they can get down those waiting lists and deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. The staff, as Lord Darzi has outlined, have felt very severely the detriment caused by the previous Government. They are working under really difficult conditions, and we want to make sure that, through the 10-year plan and the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, we offer them hope, so that they are ready to deliver the services that they have been trained to deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her responses this afternoon. I will allow a moment for the Front Benchers to swap over.
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
(1 day, 3 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
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on whether the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund will continue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I welcome the opportunity to respond to this urgent question. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has for many years provided valuable therapeutic support to adopted children and special guardianship children who were previously in care.
I very much recognise that funding over that period has supported many children and families and helped them towards a stable family life. I have in recent weeks heard many more stories of how important the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been to many, and I pay tribute to the Members from all parts of the House who have been advocates and champions for adopted children and children in special guardianship placements in their constituencies.
I very much appreciate that the delay in confirming the continuation of this fund has been a very difficult time for many. I am especially concerned about children and families, because many of those whom the adoption and special guardianship support fund supports are in great need of continued help.
I also recognise that there has been an impact on providers of therapy, who have not been able to plan and prepare for the year ahead in the way they would have liked. However, the Department has been clear with local authorities and regional adoption agencies about transitional funding arrangements, which means that therapy that started in the last financial year can continue into 2025-26, even ahead of full 2025-26 budget announcements.
Appropriate transitional funding has been agreed for a significant number of children. I regret the delay in making this announcement, but I am happy to confirm today that £50 million has been allocated for the adoption and special guardianship support fund this year. We will be announcing further details to the House in the coming days and opening applications to families and children across our country as soon as we can.
Munira Wilson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this urgent question; I thank you especially on behalf of the thousands of vulnerable children, their adoptive parents and kinship carers who rely on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care and co-chair of the APPG on children.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement, which none of us were expecting, because many Members on all sides of the Chamber have spent the last few months asking question after question only to be being batted away time after time and told that answers would be forthcoming. This vital fund is there to help the most vulnerable children who have experienced the deepest trauma. Those who have been looking to renew applications for this coming financial year, like the constituent I mentioned in my question to the Prime Minister last week, have been left hanging in limbo. While I am grateful for today’s announcement, has the Minister considered what impact there has been on those families?
In the case I mentioned of my constituent Sarah, she said that her daughter has started to regress in the period between finishing her last lot of therapy and being able to secure the next lot of therapy. Another woman contacted me to tell me that she is special guardian for a child who at the age of just two witnessed her mother being murdered by her father, and she has been unable to access the right level of support.
The Minister mentioned the impact on providers. The Purple Elephant Project in my constituency of Twickenham is desperately fundraising to continue providing support, while others are taking their support elsewhere. Therefore, there are concerns about whether there will be sufficient provision. While I am grateful for the announcement, can the Minister confirm how long the £50 million will last, and whether Ministers are considering expanding the eligibility criteria for the support fund to include all kinship carers, not just special guardians? It is the least we can do for these most vulnerable children.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for her points. I very much appreciate the concern caused by the delay in this announcement, and I recognise the potential impact on children and families, as well as local authorities, regional adoption agencies and providers of therapy. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, there is a statutory duty for local authorities to have support services in place for adopted children. The Government very much support that. To her questions about kinship carers, the plan is for the support fund to open to kinship carers as well, and that £50 million is for the year. Further information will be provided shortly about those arrangements.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I clearly welcome today’s announcement, but it is a tragedy that many services have closed and people’s therapy has been stopped as a result of this funding hiatus. Will the Minister ensure that those impacted by the gap in funding will have additional support for the trauma that it could have caused to those young people? Will she ensure that the Treasury signs off funding ahead of deadlines when the funding ends?
Janet Daby
The Government remain committed to adopted children and children who are in kinship placements or have special guardianships. The Government will continue to work together to make sure that sufficient funding is in place and is more timely.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important UQ.
It is utterly extraordinary that we have had to summon the Government to the Chamber to provide clarity on whether they have axed a programme that ended yesterday—or so we thought—which supports 20,000 of our most vulnerable young people. The Government have been given lots of opportunities to clarify the funding situation. The Prime Minister was asked about it in the Chamber just last week. Either they did not know at that stage, or they just did not want to tell us—or, more importantly, the thousands of young people using the programme. Even by current Department for Education standards, this is utterly chaotic.
I do welcome the decision today, but can the Minister tell us when it was made? She recognises the impact that it has had on children and families up and down the country, but that impact is the result of her decisions and her delay. Can she please explain to us why this has happened and why the Government could not confirm the future of a £50,000-a-year programme sooner?
Janet Daby
As I have already said, I am delighted that we are now able to confirm that there will be £50 million for the adoption and special guardianship support fund for ’25-26. We will announce further details to the House in coming days, and we will open up the fund for applications as soon as possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my neighbouring MP and the Liberal Democrat leader on education, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), on being granted this urgent question. Her constituents and mine benefit from the Purple Elephant Project, through which more than 50 families get much-needed therapy that ensures that children stay out of higher-cost services. Like other groups that MPs have been hearing from in their constituencies, those families have been devastated by the delay; not knowing whether this important therapy would continue was already having an impact on them. I therefore also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening—I know this issue is close to her heart, too—and for the work she has been doing with Treasury Ministers, which I assume has enabled her to make this announcement.
How can we ensure that this does not happen again? It became the norm that groups serving vulnerable constituents would not know until right at the end of the financial year whether they would get continuation funding. How can we guarantee that that does not happen again for these groups and others serving vulnerable constituents?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for her concern and her lobbying. Many Members and organisations have lobbied me on this matter. I appreciate all of the therapeutic providers up and down our country, especially the one in her constituency. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, local authorities have a statutory duty to have support services in place for adopted children. As a Government, we will continue to support local authorities to do that.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
On Friday in my surgery, a constituent came to talk to me about her eight-year-old adopted son who was born withdrawing from the drugs that his birth mother took during pregnancy as well as from alcohol abuse. The birth mother also suffered significant physical and emotional abuse. That has left this poor boy with many needs; he has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, developmental trauma, attachment disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia, dyslexia and a damaged nervous system. The therapy, play therapy and occupational therapy funded by the adoption and special guardianship support fund is essential for that boy. If there is one thing the Government should do, it is to prioritise children who have those needs. While I welcome the £50 million for the financial year we are just starting, boys like him and thousands of children around the country need not only certainty for the upcoming financial year but long-term certainty that they will get the care and support they need. Will the Minister work with the Treasury to find a long-term settlement, so that the most vulnerable in our society are not in this year in, year out funding trap?
Janet Daby
I absolutely hear and recognise the concerns the hon. Member has raised regarding the eight-year-old adopted child. As I said in my statement, the Department has been clear with local authorities and regional adoption agencies about transitional funding arrangements, and that should apply to many of the children our constituents have been contacting us about. That means that therapy that started in the last financial year can continue into ’25-26, even ahead of full ’25-26 budget announcements. However, I would say to the hon. Member that the Conservative party had a decade in which to ask Ministers those types of questions, so perhaps he should be turning his attention to his own Front Benchers.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the UQ and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her response. I will ask a question on behalf of the 340 kinship families in east Durham who are living in a constant state of anxiety. They are worried each month about how they will make ends meet, worried about whether their local authority would be among the 10 included in the pilot scheme and, until the Minister’s announcement, they were worried about losing access to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provides vital funding for therapeutic services to many families. The Minister has ended uncertainty with the announcement, but will she ensure that all kinship families receive stable, long-term financial and emotional support that is tailored to their unique needs, regardless of their kinship arrangement?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for his question about kinship carers. They are essential and provide invaluable support and care to kinship children. The Department announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance, to test whether an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting the child could help to increase the number of children taken in by kinship carers. That is still being worked up, but I hear what my hon. Friend is saying about the uncertainty around some of that. In October, we appointed a national kinship care ambassador and the Department for Education published new kinship care statutory guidance for local authorities. We have 140 peer support groups across England, and there are various other areas of support and training for kinship carers. I would be happy to speak to him further on this matter.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I rise as a proud adoptive auntie who has seen for herself the impact of the fund on the most vulnerable children and their families. I also rise as the MP for Christine, a child therapist who lives in Hazel Grove, who wrote to me about the impact that the uncertainty around the fund was having on the families she works with. Children who have been through trauma, who have been neglected and who have ended up moving into a new family need safety, security and certainty. Does the Minister agree that we should be encouraging more people to be adoptive parents and not put off those who cannot afford it? Does she also agree that those who are self-employed and currently do not get any financial support from the Government should get that support in line with the biological cohort?
Janet Daby
The hon. Member has given me something to think about, so I thank her for that. I congratulate her on being an adoptive auntie. Since 2015, over £400 million has helped support nearly 53,000 children who have received therapeutic support. I agree that more people should consider being adopters and that their financial situation should not prevent them from being able to adopt.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this really important UQ. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that £50 million will be allocated this year to this incredibly important fund. That will end the limbo that families have found themselves in while they have experienced this unfortunate delay.
It is essential that we give all kinship children the same opportunities to heal, to achieve and to thrive. This is the second service affecting kinship families that has received late confirmation in the past few months. I know that the Minister, as a former social worker, cares for and has a particular interest in this group of young people. Will she work with the APPG to support longer-term planning for funding for kinship families?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for all her comments. I assure her that I remain committed to working with the APPG on kinship care.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This fund is really important to so many vulnerable children and their families. Although it is disappointing that many families and children have been left in limbo for a good few months, I welcome the Government’s announcement of the extension of funding. I would like to raise two points. First, will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to speed up applications and reduce any potential logjam in the system while funding is being released? Secondly, will she commit to the House and to families and children that she will meet Treasury Ministers and look at the potential for a longer-term funding settlement to reduce such uncertainty in future?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fund. We will announce further details to the House in coming days and open the fund for applications as soon as possible. I will continue to work closely with my Treasury colleagues.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to answer the urgent question. I know from her visit to Harlow last week how much she cares about supporting young people. Having worked in the charity sector before I came to this place, I recognise that short-termism in funding for services to support vulnerable people is not a new problem. Will she confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that adopted children are given the support they deserve?
Janet Daby
We believe that children need to be secure in a long-term home, whether that is with kinship families, adoptive families or various others. Our commitment and our endeavour is to make sure that we provide the best home for a child so that they can grow, learn, play and thrive.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
John, my constituent in Chichester, is 12. He sent an email to Beacon House, a therapy provider in Chichester, which said:
“I’m really sad and worried that I won’t be able to see Becky any more.”—
Becky is his therapist. The email continued:
“Can someone please tell me how to not feel so sad?”
John will be delighted that his support from Becky will continue, but the lack of clarity has been felt acutely by vulnerable families, who find uncertainty incredibly triggering. Will the Minister please provide clarity on the Floor of the House today—that we will not be back here next year having the same discussion?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for sharing that information regarding John. I would like to think that many children are being protected from certain information so that it does not cause them further anxiety. I am delighted that we have been able to confirm that there will be £50 million for the adoption and special guardianship support fund for 2025-26, and I absolutely understand the need to ensure that such funding is ongoing and delivered in a timely manner.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Last week, I had the honour of speaking to a parent who had cause to use the special guardianship service in Calder Valley. I know the anxiety that that has caused. Will the Minister confirm that the spending review will seek to provide more assurance that we will properly fund both children’s social care and the special guardianship service?
Janet Daby
We are always keenly working across Departments and within our Department with the Treasury to ensure that we can have enough funds to do the things that we would like to do in government.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on obtaining the urgent question and dragging this information from the Minister, whether kicking and screaming or not. First, I thank Tim and Rachel and Matt and Kelly from my constituency: two families who have adopted youngsters and benefited from the fund. I was adopted some 55 years ago, but the world is now a much more complex place, so children are much more likely to have had adverse childhood experiences and therefore need this funding.
One had hoped that, following the general election, the adults were back in the room. Will the Minister assure the House that the funding will continue year after year?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for his question and pay tribute to his constituents. This Government have no plans at this time to prevent the funding from continuing. As I have said, under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, local authorities have a statutory duty to have support services in place for adopted children.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many colleagues, I wrote to the Minister recently regarding the fund, so I welcome today’s news. The adoption and special guardianship fund was described to me as a lifeline. I know that the Minister has touched on the timelines for funding allocations, but will she confirm that it will be up to county councils to apply for the funding, and will she give any indication of when the extra funding will reach councils and, therefore, families and children?
Janet Daby
I have sort of already answered my hon. Friend’s question. We will ensure that we look at the matter straightaway and that the roll-out takes place straightaway.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her clarity. She will know only too well the distress that this has caused to many children and young adults, particularly those from vulnerable households and families. Will she confirm that Northern Ireland kinship children and adoptees who have been adopted to England will benefit from the fund? Will she also clarify whether any ongoing conversations about best practice and learning on the issue are being shared with the Northern Ireland Executive?
Janet Daby
Good practice is always being shared across our devolved nations. On the other point that the hon. Lady mentions, I will endeavour to get back to her.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the confirmation that she has given today and, in particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on their championing of this issue in the House. I think I heard the Minister say that there might be a slight expansion of the fund’s remit so that it can help more people in kinship care. Will she say more on what the Government’s thinking is about whether the children who can access this fund have to have experienced care directly? There are many children who grow up in a kinship setting, as I did, and who never actually see care, but for whom this fund would be hugely valuable.
Janet Daby
For clarity, I have not said that we are looking to expand the fund—that is important. However, we are delighted to confirm £50 million for the fund, and it is available to kinship carers as well. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there is a lot of focus from this Government on kinship care, and I would be happy to fill him in on further details on that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In Mid Sussex, Beacon House provides help to so many children. It was led to believe that only a small minority of families were eligible for continued ASGSF funding, but it appears that, in fact, more than half of its service users were eligible. It would have known that had timely and detailed advice from the Government been forthcoming.
We must not forget that at the heart of this are the children and families affected. My constituent Joe has had to explain to their distraught child why their therapy would not continue. As Joe rightly says, this is “cruel”. This is the fourth time I have raised the matter and the urgent need to continue the funding. I welcome today’s decision, but given that the Minister is clearly unable to answer my colleagues’ questions about whether the funding will continue in future years, would she like to apologise on behalf of the Government for the distress caused to those children and families?
Janet Daby
We have no intention of ending the funding. What I will say is that we are pleased that we can announce the funding for 2025-26.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for raising this matter. I declare that I am an adoptive parent and a foster carer. My family is currently accessing post-adoption support, with a view to potentially applying for therapy. I have also had fellow adoptive parents in my constituency get in touch about the delay in the announcement and the concern that that has caused. Will the Minister acknowledge the need for timely decision making when it comes to support for vulnerable children and young people, so that there is continuity of support and a gradual stepping down rather than abrupt cut-offs? Will she also assure the House that officials in her Department are working at pace to ensure that the very welcome £50 million for adoptive parents and kinship care placements is made available as quickly as possible?
Janet Daby
I absolutely agree that such decisions need to be made in a timely fashion. The Department and my officials are working at pace with the new information, and I very much appreciate the concern that the delay in this announcement has caused. We need to get on with the job to make sure that we can start ensuring the children’s therapies can continue and begin.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Due to the funding uncertainty, my Havering constituent has not been able to access sensory therapy for her adopted son from the adoption and special guardianship support fund. She asked me in her utter frustration:
“why is this government trying to give my two biological children—raised in a good home—free breakfast while denying therapy for my adopted child, who desperately needs the support?”
I very much welcome today’s rushed announcement, but will the Minister provide assurance that resources will be put into processing any backlog in applications so that adopted children do not miss out on critical support?
Janet Daby
I understand the political points being made here. What I will say is that we are really pleased about the £50 million announcement. We are working and further information will come out as soon as possible regarding the funding.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for her advocacy on this issue, as well as the Minister for her announcement. I, too, have received many emails from desperately worried constituents as we approached and then crossed the cliff edge in adoption support funding. They will struggle to square that with reports that the Government are willing to scrap the tax on US social media giants. Can the Minister please assure me that any future difficult decisions needed in this area will benefit vulnerable children more than they benefit Elon Musk?
Janet Daby
We will continue to support adopted children. According to the Adoption and Children Act 2002, there is a statutory duty for local authorities to do that and we will continue to ensure that we carry through with our children’s social care reforms.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this urgent question. Zach and Iesha were placed in the care of my amazing caseworker, Sammie, nine years ago. They had a really hard start in life and were shortly due to start receiving trauma therapy and life story work. I am really pleased that it seems that work and their journey can continue. However, does the Minister recognise the burden for families of being put on hold for so long? Will she confirm that support will go forward, beyond this year?
Janet Daby
As I have already said, this Government have no intention of getting rid of the funding in future years. It is down there in law that support needs to be given to adoptive families and, indeed, we are giving that support to children placed in special guardianships and to kinship carers.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I am talking to a family in my constituency who adopted a young boy and a girl in 2021. They understood at the time that the children were likely to have special needs because of their upbringing, but they were prepared to take on the challenge. The boy in particular requires therapy to keep him in mainstream school. They have been very distressed over recent months at the possibility of losing the funding. Does the Minister not appreciate that this damages our great need to recruit more people to be adoptive parents, which does the state a great service and the children themselves the best possible service?
Janet Daby
There are many families, people or couples who wish to adopt, and I encourage them still to consider including a child in their family and in their life. I will also say, as I have said before, that local authorities have a duty to support adopted children, and no adoptive person or couple should ever not adopt for financial reasons. Obviously, they also undertake an assessment to make sure they are suitable.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Sensory Smart Child in my constituency does fantastic work providing vital therapies for 115 adopted children and their parents, but 77 of those children were unable to secure a temporary extension in support while the Government considered the future of the adoption fund, and that caused huge trauma for the families. I welcome today’s announcement, but can the Minister guarantee future funding? Will she also acknowledge that such therapies fill huge gaps but barely touch the sides in mental health and special educational needs provision in schools, which is not funded properly? I hope that the comprehensive spending review will look at this properly and fund it better.
Janet Daby
I think I have already answered that question, but I say again that there are many excellent therapies out there that are absolutely necessary for children, and that children from all backgrounds and lifestyles benefit from. I absolutely appreciate the work that is done for children in our country.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham for securing this urgent question and the Minister for her commitment on the £50 million. I have secured an Adjournment debate on Thursday on adoption breakdown, and over the past few days I have been asking people to tell me their stories. I have heard that things such as the adoption and special guardianship fund are crucial to preventing it. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the fund on ensuring that adoptions can continue, and will she make that information publicly available, if possible?
Janet Daby
I look forward to speaking to the hon. Member during his Adjournment debate—I am sure that he will ask me many more questions, as is absolutely appropriate. I would say that this should not prevent people from coming forward to adopt children, and that children will still get the support they need and so rightly deserve.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham on securing this urgent question and this commitment from the Government. I recently received the following email from a constituent:
“Since adopting my children I have received absolutely no support at all. After 15 years of caring for a severely traumatised child, I heard about the post adoption support team… They applied to the fund and my son has just had his first assessment session and we are awaiting the report… He has been failed at every step of his life—please don’t fail him again.”
My constituent will be pleased to hear today’s announcement, but on their behalf I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, will she do everything in her power to ensure that local authorities are signposting adoptive parents to the support of this fund and the eligibility for it? Secondly, taking into account her comment that she has “no plans” to prevent the fund continuing, will she and her Department ensure that the announcement is made no later than September on the funding of the scheme in future financial years, given that the spending review is due before the summer?
Janet Daby
This Government absolutely support this fund and this funding being made available. If the hon. Member would like to share any more information regarding the 15-year-old and the family’s experience of lack of support, I would welcome him to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question—no one can doubt her compassion or understanding, given the way she has answered. I am mindful of the fact that children are our future—as a grandfather of six, I understand only too well what it means to have them there—but 18,000 children are left in limbo throughout every region of the United Kingdom, and to get to the point where there is no confirmation of whether essential therapy can continue is terribly disheartening, to say the least. These children feel abandoned. How will the Minister ensure that the lack of a decision, and the hesitation, will not add to their sense of abandonment?
Janet Daby
I congratulate the hon. Member on being a grandfather of six, and I hear the concerns he has raised. I share those concerns, and the Government will continue to work to ensure that the support services are in place for all children who need it, including those who are involved with this funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. I will allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, new guidelines from the Sentencing Council on pre-sentence reports have come under scrutiny in recent weeks, specifically on whether an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin should be a factor in their use. This is a question of huge import: whether we all stand equal before the law. That is an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries and an ancient right that each of us in this House has a responsibility to uphold. The new guidelines on the use of pre-sentence reports were due to come into force from today, but in recent weeks I have had constructive talks with the Sentencing Council and I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for that engagement. As a result, I am pleased to tell the House that the guidelines have been put on pause while Parliament rightly has its say.
It is important to first understand how we got into this position. Under the previous Government, the Sentencing Council proposed changes to its imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines, which are concerned with whether a judge should make a community or custodial order when sentencing an offender, and the thresholds for these disposals. When the courts are deciding whether the community order threshold is met, or the custody threshold is met, they are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report unless they consider it unnecessary to do so. These reports provide more information to the court, helping to provide a greater understanding of the background and context of the offending behaviour. They are a tool at the disposal of judges. The guidelines provide further guidance to courts on how to approach the decision whether to request a pre-sentence report. In this instance, they help them to determine what sentence might best be handed down.
In general, I should be clear, I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports. In the last few months, I have created capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that it has more time for vital work such as this. But the new guidance, if it came into force, would encourage judges to request them for some cohorts of offenders and not others. Specifically, it notes that it would “normally be considered necessary” to request pre-sentence reports for ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. It is important to be clear about the impact that a pre-sentence report is likely to have in this instance: it is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. It is this that creates the perception of differential treatment before the law and risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.
A repeated theme of my engagement with the Sentencing Council over the guidelines has been the intention behind them. It was attempting to address very real inequalities that exist in our justice system—inequalities that are evident in the sentences that offenders receive. It is unclear why this happens, as the Sentencing Council acknowledges. There is no doubt that more must be done to understand the problem we face and to address it. Some measures are already taking place across our justice system to make it more representative of the public that it serves, such that it can deliver outcomes in which we can all have confidence, and I note that the proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.
While change can feel slow and must accelerate, my view is that despite the noble intentions behind these guidelines, in attempting to address inequalities in our justice system they sacrifice too much. They raise a serious question of policy: in the pursuit of equality of outcome for different religions and races, should we treat them differently before the eyes of the law and move so far away from an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries? On this, I am clear: all must be equal before the law.
I know there will be disagreement in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue. There have been, as I have noted, differences of opinion among the Opposition. I expect that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who opposes these guidelines, and the now shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who welcomed them while in office, have been having some robust conversations in recent days.
I doubt, however, that there is any disagreement that this is a question of policy. How the state addresses a systemic and complex issue is clearly the domain of policymakers. It is right that questions like these are discussed and debated here. It is right that the public can hold us to account for the decisions we take and that they can ultimately reward or punish us at the ballot box.
The role of judges is entirely different. They are concerned not with how policy is made but how it is applied. The independence of our judges to make those determinations is fundamental to our justice system. Over centuries they have built a reputation for fairness, making them world-renowned and respected. They are the embodiment of the rule of law in our country. To play that role, they must be able to make decisions on the facts without any outside influence. They must know they have the Government behind them, protecting them as they do that vital work. When I swore my oath as Lord Chancellor, I made a solemn pledge to protect and defend the independence of the judiciary, and I always will. But to do so, it is essential that the boundaries between what is policy and what is judicial decision making are clear. For that reason, the Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. It is a tightly focused Bill. It does not interfere with the vital work of the council providing guidance to judges on how to sentence offenders. It addresses the issue of when a pre-sentence report should be ordered.
The Bill adopts a targeted approach. It does not prevent council guidance from advising in general terms that pre-sentence reports should be requested when judges need more information about an offender’s personal circumstances. It will remain the case, for example, that where an offender is a victim of domestic abuse, a judge can consider it in deciding whether to order a pre-sentence report. But it prohibits the council from making guidelines about pre-sentence reports with specific reference to the offender’s personal characteristics, such as their race, religion or belief, or cultural background.
The Bill will not affect the court’s existing duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, nor does it change court precedent around them—like the recent case of Thompson, in which the Court of Appeal noted the importance of obtaining a pre-sentence report in cases involving pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; like the case of Meanley, where the court referred to the importance of pre-sentence reports in serious cases involving young defendants; or like the case of Kurmekaj, where the court emphasised the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery as reasons why a pre-sentence report should be ordered. Judges will continue to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would—for example, those involving pregnant women or young people.
I accept that the Bill will, however, raise wider questions about the role of the Sentencing Council. The council does important work bringing greater consistency to judicial decision making, but we are here discussing a question of policy—a difficult, disputed and uncertain one at that. If the Government cannot determine national policy on the question of equality of treatment before the law, we have uncovered a democratic deficit. The Bill exposes that question but does not address it. The proper role of the Sentencing Council, and the process for making guidelines of this type, must be considered further, and I will do so in the coming months. It is right that this question is considered in greater depth, and should further legislation be required, I shall propose it as part of the upcoming sentencing Bill.
The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the firmament of our justice system, and any changes must be made carefully and with due consideration. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead. The Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. The issues it contains are of great consequence because the path to a more equal society can only be paved by equality before the law. Again, I thank the Sentencing Council for putting a pause on its guidelines while Parliament has its say. I believe that we must reverse them and reassert that no race or religion should receive preferential treatment before the law. The Bill we will introduce today will achieve that, and I commend this statement to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor must be living in a parallel universe if she is giving herself a pat on the back today. The truth is she has completely lost control of the justice system. She sat on her hands for weeks and took seven days to gather her thoughts and put her views in writing to the Sentencing Council. Her incompetence took this down to the wire.
Magistrates and judges were updated by the press office of the Sentencing Council only at midday that the guidelines due to come into force had in effect been suspended. That raises the very real prospect that magistrates and judges sitting from 10am this morning were unaware of this chaotic last-minute change and sentenced people under guidelines that the Justice Secretary herself has conceded are two-tier. But it gets worse. In that very email to thousands of judges and magistrates sent just 90 minutes ago, the Sentencing Council states:
“we remain of the view that the guidelines are necessary and appropriate”.
Confusion reigns. They are being told one thing by the Lord Chancellor and another by the Sentencing Council. Who really is in charge here? Yet again, the Justice Secretary has been humiliated and undermined by activist judges seeking to undermine the will of this place—our Parliament. Her authority has been shredded—she is being treated as a two-tier, second-tier Justice Secretary.
This situation was entirely preventable if the Justice Secretary had simply put party politics to one side and backed our Bill weeks ago to restore accountability and empower her to actually control justice policy, but the Labour party blocked it. If the Prime Minister has been tricked into sitting at the front of the docklands light railway thinking that he is in charge, as his chief of staff mocked him for the other day, the Lord Chancellor has chosen to sit there in the passenger seat allowing the judiciary to take charge. She decided to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, all-powerful to be impotent.
Even after this complete shambles, the Lord Chancellor will not even re-establish ministerial oversight. We are told via frantic press briefings that her Bill, which we have not even seen yet, will surgically remove these two-tier sentencing guidelines. That does not tackle the root cause of the problem at all, which is an activist legal quango that holds views completely divergent to the public, to Parliament and—now we are told—to the Government. Unless she follows the formula of the Bill produced by Conservative MPs, we will be back here time and again to unwind the next piece of madness coming out of the council.
Take the Sentencing Council’s immigration guidelines that water down sentences for immigration offences below the 12-month threshold for automatic deportation: if published, it will mean hundreds of illegal migrants and foreign national offenders will avoid deportation every single year. It will blow a hole in border security. It even waters down the maximum life sentence for people smugglers that was legislated for just under a year ago. It completely disregards parliamentary sovereignty.
At our last exchange, the Justice Secretary said there would be no two-tier justice on her watch. Well, there it is—and it is worse than that. On 2 January, her own Department—not the Sentencing Council—published guidance ordering the prioritisation of bail for ethnic minorities and transgender people, continuing a practice introduced under Gordon Brown. Contrary to the misinformation peddled by her press office, the Department produced new guidance on pre-sentencing reports that have been in force for months, which state that probation officers should consider the “culture” of an offender and whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “historical events”. Well, that is cultural relativism, which violates the rule of law and puts the British public at risk. This time, nobody is to blame other than her. It is her Department; it is black and white; it is two-tier justice.
I have some questions. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House that nobody was sentenced this morning under guidelines that she concedes are two tier? Can she honestly say at the Dispatch Box that she has confidence in the head of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Davies, given that he has brought it into total disrepute—yes or no? If she can, is she aware that he took to the airwaves yesterday, in an astonishing departure from the expected standards of judicial conduct, to advocate for abolishing short sentences, especially for hyper-prolific offenders, effectively instructing lower courts to follow suit? It is time for him to go, and if she will not sack him for that, what will it take?
Does the Justice Secretary have confidence in Johanna Robinson, another member of the Sentencing Council, who took a moral objection to border control and described the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as appalling? Lastly, will the Justice Secretary change the guidance that her own Department is producing and which has created a two-tier Probation Service? Or is it, once again on her watch, two-tier justice under two-tier Keir?
Shabana Mahmood
Dear, dear, dear me. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman’s amnesia is as bad as ever: 14 whole years appear to have disappeared entirely from his memory. He talks about parliamentary sovereignty, but when his party was in government and he was a Secretary of State or a Minister, he appeared never to know what on earth parliamentary sovereignty was or how to exercise power.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather distressed that my approach has led to a pause in the guidelines, that I will introduce a Bill that will deal with the offending bit of this guideline, and that I will consider the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council ahead of the sentencing Bill later this year. I understand that it must be very disappointing for him that he has been exposed as someone who is all talk and no action, and that I get the job done. I can see that that annoys him greatly.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to begin by apologising to the country, as I often invite him to do when we have our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. In 14 years, he never appeared to discover any of the things that he now discusses regularly from the Opposition Benches. He did nothing about those matters when he was a member of the Government that ran the country. Perhaps that is the problem: the Conservatives never really ran the country; they gave up on the job. He never rolled up his sleeves and put in the hard work to get the job done. That is why we inherited prisons on the brink of collapse, and why I am now unwinding all the mistakes that his party made and the guidance that he and his party welcomed.
The right hon. Gentleman did not tell me what discussions he has had with the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Before the Conservatives explain why they are so het up about things now, they should explain why they welcomed those things when they were in office. There was no answer to those questions. I do not believe that there were many questions in that diatribe from the shadow Justice Secretary.
On sentencing, the pause in the guideline was communicated—that is a matter for the Sentencing Council. I will, of course, engage with the judiciary to ensure that all is understood regarding the pause. Nothing has changed in relation to the ordering of pre-sentencing reports by judges in all the circumstances in which they would ordinarily do so. The guideline is what has been paused, and it will now not come into effect until Parliament has had its say. The right hon. Gentleman references two individuals. That is the difference between me and him: I do not make it personal. I just focus on the job, and I get the job done.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I realise that this is not a popular view in the House, but the Justice Secretary will be aware that some of us are astonished that she thinks our judges are so weak-minded as to be affected by what are guidelines in relation to how they sentence black and brown defendants.
The Justice Secretary will be aware that report after report and repeated statistical analysis have demonstrated what some of us consider to be unfairness in relation to black and brown people and the criminal justice system. She will also be aware that the reason the Sentencing Council was made a statutory independent body was to avoid even the appearance of ministerial interference in sentencing. This is not the United States; our political and judicial systems are entirely separate. Can she explain why she is so triumphant about not just interfering in sentencing, but passing a piece of legislation to cut across what the Sentencing Council is saying?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions—at least she asks some proper questions. She says that her view on the policy might be an unpopular one, but this is the place where views on policy, popular or unpopular, can and should be debated. That is at the heart of my disagreement with the Sentencing Council on the guideline.
I think that the matters that my right hon. Friend raises in relation to race and the disparities in the criminal justice system are the proper preserve of politicians. The answer to how we deal with those issues will be a policy answer, and it is for the Government, the Opposition and other Members to debate that policy answer and pursue it through Parliament. That is why I reject entirely the suggestion that anything I have done impinges upon the independence of the judiciary or calls into question the separation of powers in this country.
The Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute; it is only 15 years old. It is entirely proper for a politician—a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor—to assert that there is a boundary between that which is policy and a matter for Parliament and that which is judicial practice and consistency in judicial cases. I have sought to reassert that boundary. I look forward to working with Members with differing views from across the House in considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. As I have said, I will return to those matters in the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
There is only one group in this House that lost control of our justice system: the decimated former Government on the Opposition Benches. Overcrowded prisons, reoffending through the roof, victims waiting for justice—what a disgrace. That disgrace continues today through the downplaying of the impact of intergenerational trauma—of which child abuse is a form—by the shadow Justice Secretary.
I thank the Lord Chancellor for engaging with me on this issue in advance of her statement. Our criminal justice system’s ability to take someone’s freedom away is one of the most humbling powers that it holds, which is why sentencing decisions must include all available information. Pre-sentence reports are a critical part of that process. She mentioned pregnant women, survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of modern slavery as important examples of where that is considered. However, because everybody has a context, the Liberal Democrats believe that such reports should consistently be made available whenever anyone’s liberty is at stake. We will therefore scrutinise the legislation through that lens of equality before the law.
It is rich of the Conservatives to complain about inequality in our justice system when it was they who presided over a state of affairs in which someone from one our country’s most deprived areas is 10 times more likely to be in prison than someone from the least deprived, someone who looks like me is four times more likely to be stopped and searched than others, and people with special educational needs represent half the prison population compared to a fifth of the general population. Will the Justice Secretary outline how she will fairly tackle those disparities to restore confidence in the justice system, which was so shattered by the Conservative party?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his questions. He is right: as I said in my statement, pre-sentence reports are an incredibly vital tool for judges. In fact, the requirement is that they should ask for a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. There is a strong push towards obtaining pre-sentence reports in the vast majority of cases. The Probation Service that I inherited from the previous Administration has struggled under increased workloads. It was a service that the Conservative party privatised and then partly renationalised—our Probation Service officers, who do vital work every single day, have been through the mill.
I have been making changes to the focus of the Probation Service in the last few months to pivot its work to focus on high and medium-risk offenders and free up probation capacity, so that more time can be spent doing vital work such as the preparation of pre-sentence reports. I will carry on working with the Probation Service to ensure it is ready to do what is asked of it, to a very high and consistent standard, which I know will be important to all Members. I have already announced 1,300 extra probation officers in the financial year that has just passed and another 1,000 in the coming financial year. Probation remains vital to the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and we will ensure it is in a position to meet the asks that are made of it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points about disparities across the criminal justice system, I thank him for the spirit in which he has engaged with me on those matters. I have the same concerns as him, but I believe we should understand what the latest data is showing us. That is why I have asked for a review of all the current data, and we should test any solutions we come up with. They are policy solutions, so they would have to be debated and passed in this House, and politicians are ultimately responsible at the ballot box for the choices they make, but those solutions have to work—they have to yield a change in these disparities. That is what I want to test.
In my engagement with the Sentencing Council on this particular guideline, it has accepted that the causes of the disparities are unclear, and no one is sure whether the changes to pre-sentence reports would make a difference anyway. I am not willing to sacrifice public confidence in the criminal justice system or chip away at the idea of equality before the law for solutions that are appropriate for debate in this place and that we are not even sure would work. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman closely in the coming weeks and months on these issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. Of course, I respect the independence of the judiciary. I think I was very clear in my statement and the remarks I have made that I not only stand behind that principle, but have taken an oath that I fulfil and consider my duty to do so. Where I consider to be in disagreement with the Sentencing Council is that this is properly an area of policy, rather than a mere tool for the consistency of judicial practice when it comes to sentencing. That is the point of principle on which we have a disagreement, and it is why I will be considering a further review of the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. I simply repeat to my hon. Friend that ensuring that a creature of statute is operating in the way that was intended when that statute was put in place is the proper preserve of politicians and Parliament. I hope we can all agree on that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her rather belated statement. I particularly welcome her observation that recent events have uncovered a democratic deficit. Is she not concerned that it was the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who uncovered this deficit, and not herself, her ministerial team or her Department? It was my right hon. Friend who first raised the issue of two-tier sentencing guidelines in this Chamber on 5 March, four weeks ago. Could the Lord Chancellor tell us why she has waited until the eve of their introduction to bring forward her emergency legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the guidelines and what was brought to his attention when, perhaps people in his party should not have waved them through before the general election and welcomed them, as the shadow Transport Secretary did. I notice that none of them is engaging on the substance of that point. I am the one who is dealing with the democratic deficit. They had 14 years in power and did nothing about it, and now they just carp from the sidelines.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the previous Government were consulted on and, indeed, welcomed the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines, and therefore it is totally unfair of Conservative Members to accuse this Government of having a two-tier system? Does she agree that it is yet another example of this Government having to clear up the previous Government’s mess?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right: many Conservative Members appear to have a very loose relationship with their own track record.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor is right that equality before the law lies at the heart of popular respect for justice. However, I must say to her that it is not this House that endangers the separation of powers, but judicial activists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has made palpably clear, who are more interested in making laws than applying them. Will she, as my right hon. Friend requested, let this House know whether she retains faith in the Sentencing Council and its members or whether, like me, she believes that having been exposed, they should now do the honest and right thing and resign?
Shabana Mahmood
I have already said that I am not interested in making a personal attack on anybody. I have a disagreement on a point of principle with members of the Sentencing Council about what is the proper preserve of policy and what is the proper role they should play. We have tried to resolve it. They have agreed to pause their guideline. We will move forward constructively.
I will not stand back and let people attack the independence of the judiciary. I have sworn a solemn oath; I will fulfil that oath. We are very lucky in this country to have the sort of legal system that we do and a judiciary that is held in high regard. These are public servants of the highest order. It is easy for politicians to attack on matters of policy or politics they do not like, but as I have just shown, if politicians or parliamentarians disagree with something, we have the power to change it.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The juridification of law should worry us all, and we should make sure that primacy remains with this House; the Lord Chancellor has taken an important step towards that today. What is worrying is that for 14 years, no action was taken by the Conservative party. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that was because of incompetence or just a lack of understanding of what it meant for the country?
Shabana Mahmood
Who can say? I suggest asking any of the Conservative Members here whether they have an answer to that, but they appear to still wish to live on another planet and never reckon with their own track record in government.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Black people in Wales were the most over-represented ethnic group in prison in 2023, followed by those from a mixed background and people belonging to an Asian ethnic group. That over-representation is worse in Wales than in England. Pre-sentencing reports can help us to understand why people of black and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be sent to prison. Even if she disagrees with the method, surely the Secretary of State agrees that action is necessary to tackle evidenced inequality within the criminal justice system, so what solutions is she bringing forward?
Shabana Mahmood
The proper role of a pre-sentence report is to give a judge who is about to pass down a sentence vital information about the context of that offender—for example, whether there has been domestic abuse, their age and other vital factors relevant to the offending behaviour—so that the judge can make a decision about the best sentence to pass. The pre-sentence report is not about setting right any other wrongs that exist, however legitimate they are—that is not the point of the pre-sentence report—but about giving the sentencer in every single individual case the information that they need, such as whether a woman is pregnant or has recently given birth, as the Court of Appeal upheld recently. Those circumstances should be properly understood by judges. The position in law is that a pre-sentence report should be sought by judges in all cases, unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. That covers the majority of cases where a pre-sentence report should be sought, but we should not confuse the proper role of what the pre-sentence report is there to do.
To the extent that there are over-representations, I see them too. Over 70% of my constituents are non-white and, as the right hon. Lady can see, I am from an ethnic minority background myself, and I am also from a faith minority. I see those disparities—they are a lived reality of my own life—but I am not prepared to sacrifice the principle of equality before the law to put those disparities right. I wish to be more curious than anybody else has been in previous years about what lies behind those disparities, and about what are the proper levers that have to be pulled to put them right. We often discuss judicial diversity, but I am not sure that increases in diversity have necessarily led to a change in what the underlying data shows. Clearly, there is more going on. Any solutions that politicians come up with have to be tested in the House, because they are properly the domain of policy and Parliament.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a victory over the Sentencing Council on the fundamental principle of equality before the law? The independence of the Sentencing Council does not entitle its members to go over its boundaries, into the area of policy and politics into which they have strayed. That is such a fundamental issue that having made those fundamental errors of judgment, those members of the Sentencing Council should no longer be able to carry on in the job, whether it is by their own decision or that of the Secretary of State.
Shabana Mahmood
In fairness to the Sentencing Council, it sought views from the previous Government and was told that the Government welcomed its findings, both in the consultation and the guideline. The Sentencing Council did not do anything wrong in the process that it followed. I invited it to consider that there had been a change of Government and a change of policy since it began work on the guideline, and asked it to consider reopening the consultation. I was disappointed that it chose not to do so, but I am not interested in making this a personal debate about individuals. I am grateful to the Sentencing Council for pausing the guideline, which has not come into effect. All our previous arrangements in relation to pre-sentence reports remain in place. As I say, I am considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, and I will return to the House with further proposals in due course.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The cherished idea of equal treatment before the law is fundamental to my constituents’ understanding of British justice, so why did the Justice Secretary not act immediately to stop the imposition of two-tier sentencing, rather than the last minute scramble we saw yesterday? In her statement today, she says:
“The proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.”
To what extent does she consider that that simply reflects a wider demographic change, rather than discrimination in the judiciary?
Shabana Mahmood
On diversity in the judiciary, there has been consensus in this House on that point. A lot of effort has gone into encouraging applications from people who may want to consider leaving private practice and becoming judges, which has started to have an effect. Having institutions that are more representative of the country that they represent is an important principle. I hope that there is cross-party consensus that it is important for Parliament to look, at least a little bit, like the people that it seeks to represent. However, I am not sure whether an increase in the diversity of judges is necessarily going to be the fix for the disparity issues that we see in the criminal justice system. That is why I have asked for a review of what the current data is telling us, to tease out whether there is a relationship between those two things. If there is not, then we will need to think more carefully about the other policy levers that might be needed. I think those are proper matters for this House to discuss.
On the hon. Lady’s broader point about the Sentencing Council, I used a power that has never been used before, in the 15 years of the Sentencing Council’s existence, to ask it to think again. I have done everything the proper way: I asked it to think again and I engaged with the Sentencing Council. At the end of last week, it told me that it was going to stick with and publish the guideline, and that it would come into force today, 1 April, which is why I said I would legislate. I brought forward a Bill, which has been published today, and thankfully the Sentencing Council has chosen to pause the guideline until Parliament has had its say. I have done everything exactly as I should have done, instead of rushing to rhetoric, which I do not believe solves anything.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Pregnant women and new mothers are at high risk in custody. They are seven times more likely to experience a stillbirth and at least two baby deaths have taken place in recent years. Among other important measures, the Sentencing Council has issued guidance on the use of prison sentences for pregnant women and new mothers, which were supposed to come into effect today. Any delay to that risks causing untold, preventable harm. I am relieved that the Lord Chancellor has committed to protecting that guidance, but how quickly will it be implemented, because women cannot wait any longer?
Shabana Mahmood
I can offer my hon. Friend immediate reassurance. The Bill that we have published today is a very targeted Bill on the ability of the Sentencing Council to bring forward guidelines relating only to pre-sentence reports and personal characteristics. It is a very tightly focused Bill and nothing in that Bill affects any Court of Appeal precedent, and there is already strong Court of Appeal precedent on the desirability of a court obtaining pre-sentence reports before it passes sentence in cases involving pregnant women and women who have recently given birth.
More widely, on the issues of policy relating to women in the criminal justice system, I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that I have set up the women’s justice board specifically to look at the needs of female offenders across the whole criminal justice system. I am determined—it is a position of policy for this Government—that we will send fewer women to prison and ultimately have fewer women’s prisons. That is properly a matter for policy. I am sure it will be contested in this House, but that is the realm of politics, Parliament and ultimately the ballot box.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the news today that the Sentencing Council had a last-minute change of heart on pre-sentencing reports. To go back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), why did it take the efforts of the shadow Justice Secretary to get the Lord Chancellor to have a change of heart on that important matter? We did not get an answer on that before.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Whatever their ethnic background, my constituents in Rochdale are united in supporting the ancient British principle of equality under the law. I welcome what the Justice Secretary has produced today, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who welcomed the previous attempts at two-tier justice. Does she agree with me that pre-sentence reports should be available for all offenders and should never be linked to ethnicity, culture or faith?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. I wish to see the widest possible use of pre-sentencing reports. It is my job to ensure that the Probation Service is in a position to provide pre-sentencing reports whenever they are required by the court, and that courts have confidence in the reports that they are getting. I will ensure that that is the case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Has the Lady Chief Justice been rebuked for the impertinence of her letter to the Prime Minister following Prime Minister’s questions on 12 February, when he perfectly properly questioned another absurd judicial decision?
Shabana Mahmood
No. I have very positive conversations with the Lady Chief Justice. She has an important constitutional function and obligations, as do I. Our conversations are collaborative and constructive. On that matter, the Government made their view clear that the exchange at Prime Minister’s questions turned on a question of policy, which is the proper realm of politicians and ultimately Parliament.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for her decisive action on this issue and note that this Government are not ducking political decisions, farming them out to quangos like the last lot did with bodies like NHS England, or blaming the blob for crashing the economy when it was Liz Truss’s mini-Budget that did that. Does the Justice Secretary agree that politics and policy are the domain of this House and its Ministers, and can she reassure me that this Government will continue to make sure that we in this House can make the decisions that the public expect us to make?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right. The business of government is difficult and requires lots of effort. The contrast between this Government’s approach and the approach taken by the Tory party over its 14 years in government is stark. We are getting on with the job.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While the Sentencing Council guidelines do not apply in Northern Ireland, does the Lord Chancellor accept that controversial changes in England, such as a reduced likelihood of custodial sentences for certain groups, risk undermining confidence in the justice system across the entire UK? Can she outline what steps she is taking to ensure fairness and consistency in sentencing across all jurisdictions, regardless of ethnicity, culture or faith?
Shabana Mahmood
In Wales, these are reserved matters, and the guidelines would impact only on England and Wales. There are devolved arrangements here as well, which I do not propose to upend in any way, but I am always happy to have constructive conversations with colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on any such matters. In the end, we are a UK system, even where some matters are devolved, and I really appreciate and value that collaboration.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I join colleagues in paying tribute to the Lord Chancellor for her decisive leadership and for the thoughtful way in which she has answered questions today. [Laughter.] I welcome, as will my constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe, her confirmation that equality before the law will remain, and I look forward to seeing the Bill that she proposes. I can see the Tories railing against the justice system that they left us, but we on the Government Benches really are mad about it: we had a backlog of 70,000 Crown court cases, there were no prison places left and neighbourhood policing was hollowed out. Is it any wonder that voters so comprehensively rejected the Tories?
Shabana Mahmood
I think the country had its say on 14 years of the Tories in charge. To be honest, given their legacy in the criminal justice system, I would not take the same approach, but I am not surprised that they are laughing; the only other thing they could do is to cry.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Why does the Lord Chancellor propose to take only a very narrow power in respect of the two-tier pre-sentencing reports rather than a general power, given that other guidelines and draft guidelines, including for immigration offences, are far below the levels agreed to by this Parliament? The Sentencing Council is ignoring policy determined by this House. What more evidence does she need to act, and to act now?
Shabana Mahmood
On the immigration guideline, I will correct something that the shadow Justice Secretary said earlier. Nothing in that guideline prevents the deportation of any foreign national offenders, and this Government have been getting on with the job, having deported more than 24,000 foreign nationals. Our record on foreign national offenders is one of a 20% increase in removals this year compared with the same period last year. I wanted to ensure that the guideline did not come into effect, and that is why I published the targeted Bill. I have acknowledged that there is a debate to be had about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, which I will return to in the weeks and months ahead.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Sentencing Council was created in April 2010; a month later, the Conservatives came to power. If, as so many on the Conservative Benches seem to think, the Sentencing Council is a shadowy, revolutionary group of activist judges dangerously undermining the British way of life, why on earth did they not do anything about it?
Jake Richards
I think they agree with that now—interesting. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that this episode shows that our constitution is working? Parliament is sovereign, and if Parliament seeks to change this guidance, under this Government it will.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is exactly right. At no point has anybody on the Conservative Benches shown any humility or tried to answer the question of why they did nothing about it. As I say, the case of amnesia from which the shadow Justice Secretary is suffering seems to be as bad as ever.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I certainly welcome the fact that the Sentencing Council has been forced to back down on its woke proposal. As the new legislation progresses, can the Lord Chancellor assure the House that there will be no dilution of the robust principles of the separation of powers and the independence of our judiciary; and that the right approach will continue to be that Parliament sets the maximum sentence for any criminal offence, and our judges decide on a case-by-case basis what the sentence should be?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. It is for Parliament to set the overall sentencing framework, but every single judge has to see the case in front of them and make their own decisions. As I made very clear in my statement, I will always defend the independence of our judiciary; they do vital work and are a crucial part of the separation of powers. Everything that I have sought to do, given this recent episode, has been to respect that separation of powers and assert what we properly consider to be the realm of policy, politicians and Parliament, and what is the realm of the judges.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement. Does she agree that we should all hold closely the ideal of equality before the law, and that the biggest cause of two-tier justice was the mess that the Conservative party made of our Probation Service?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement.
Foreign Influence Registration Scheme
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the foreign influence registration scheme. FIRS is a fundamental component of the National Security Act 2023, which was a response to the evolving threat of hostile activity from states targeting the UK. Parts 1 to 3 of the Act came into force in December 2023 and have been transformative for our operational partners, with six charges already brought against those conducting activity for or on behalf of foreign states acting in the UK. A further five individuals involved in those cases have been charged with other offences.
FIRS provides crucial additional powers to protect our democracy, economy and society. It does three things: provides transparency on foreign state influence in the UK; gives the police and MI5 a critical new disruptive tool, with criminal offences for those who fail to comply; and deters those who seek to harm the UK. They will face a choice to either tell the Government about their actions or face arrest and imprisonment.
Given the benefits of the scheme, I can tell the House that FIRS will go live on 1 July. The political influence tier of the scheme, which applies to all states, will allow the UK to be better informed about the nature, scale and extent of foreign influence in the UK’s political system. It will strengthen our resilience against covert foreign influence. The political tier requires the registration of arrangements to carry out political influence activities in the UK at the direction of any foreign power. In most cases, registrations under this tier will be made available on a public register. For the first time, Members of this House will now be able to check whether anyone who seeks to influence them is doing so at the direction of a foreign power, a move that I am sure will be welcomed right across this House.
The enhanced tier of the scheme has been specifically designed to shed light on activities directed by foreign powers or entities whose activities pose a threat to the safety and interests of the UK. It enables the Government to specify those foreign powers that pose the greatest threat to our society, to ensure transparency over a much broader range of activities than just the political tier. It will provide an important tool for the detection and disruption of harmful activity against our country. Last month, I set out our intention to specify Iran under this tier of the scheme. I can announce today that we will also specify Russia under the scheme.
Russia presents an acute threat to UK national security. In recent years, its hostile acts have ranged from the use of a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury to espionage, arson and cyber-attacks, including the targeting of UK parliamentarians through spear-phishing campaigns. Clearly, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has also highlighted its intent to undermine European and global security. To ensure we are responding to the whole-of-state threat that Russia poses, the Government intend to specify the Head of State of Russia and its Government, agencies and authorities, which will include its armed forces, intelligence services and police force as well as its parliaments and judiciaries. We also intend to specify several political parties that are controlled by Russia, including the United Russia party. This means that any person—either an individual or an entity, such as a company—that carries out activity as part of any arrangement with those Russian entities will have to register with FIRS. Should any of these foreign power-controlled entities, such as political parties, carry out activity in the UK directly, they would also have to register with FIRS. I hope it will be clear what a powerful tool this is.
It is clear that FIRS has the potential to provide greater protection for our security, our democracy and our economy, but we must get the implementation right. In support of the scheme, the Government have today laid before Parliament draft regulations specifying Russia and Iran, introducing new exemptions from the scheme and making provision for the publication of information. Both this House and the other place will have the opportunity to consider and debate these regulations under the affirmative procedure. The Government have also laid a further set of regulations relating to the collection and disclosure of information under the scheme. To support the consideration of the regulations, and to assist potential registrants and others to better understand their responsibilities under the scheme, the Government have published comprehensive guidance online.
By bringing the scheme into force on 1 July, the Government will be giving sectors three months’ notice to help them to prepare for it. During that time, the Government will work closely with the relevant sectors, including academia and business, to ensure that they understand their obligations. Taken together, this package will ensure strong compliance with the scheme from day one. There will also be a three-month grace period to register existing arrangements. I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise the challenges posed to the UK by foreign interference, and I hope that all Members can support these further steps to keep our country safe. Of course, as with all national security issues, we must stay agile, and, as I have said, FIRS will be kept under review. Any new announcements will be made to the House in the usual way.
It is our duty to defend the safety and interests of the UK. That is why we are commencing FIRS; it is why we are introducing greater protections for our democracy; and it is why we are clamping down on the threat from states that conduct hostile activities in, and against, the UK. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I start by thanking the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement, which he provided with his customary professionalism and courtesy. We on the Conservative Benches welcome the commencement of the FIRS regime, legislated for in the last Parliament, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for their work in bringing that legislation forward. I also welcome the announcement that Iran and now Russia will be included on the enhanced list, meaning that all activity undertaken in the UK by those countries or those acting for those countries must be registered.
However, I will address the bulk of my remarks to the elephant in the room, which the Security Minister did not mention at all in his statement: China. MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, said in July 2022, almost three years ago:
“The most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s covertly applying pressure across the globe.”
In October 2023 he added:
“We have seen a sustained campaign”
of Chinese espionage on an “epic scale”. In January 2024 the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said that China is
“the defining threat of our generation”.
As such, I have a very simple question for the Security Minister this afternoon. He had plenty to say about Iran and Russia, quite rightly, but why is he silent on China? We know that China engages in industrial-scale espionage, seeking to steal technology from Governments, universities and industry. It represses Chinese citizens in this country and has sought to infiltrate our political system. In 2022, MI5 exposed that China sought to infiltrate this very Parliament via its agent Christine Lee. It has set up undeclared and illegal police stations in the UK, and in December last year it placed a bounty on the head of three Hong Kong dissidents living in the UK. I would like to ask again a question that was not answered last time: why has the Chinese ambassador not been summoned to explain that?
There is no question in my mind that China should be in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and it is an astonishing omission that it has not been listed as such already. Why are the Government silent on this issue? In the past, Governments have prioritised economic growth in their relations with China, but we now know a lot more about how China operates than we did 10 or 15 years ago—we know what it is up to. Is the truth not that, in their desperation to get economic growth going after the Chancellor’s rather unfortunate autumn Budget, the Government seem to be prioritising economic links over national security when it comes to China? I imagine that is why the Government appear to be intending to grant planning permission to China for its super-embassy, which we all know will be a base for espionage activity.
The Minister has rightly spoken about the threat posed by Iran and Russia. He is right to take action, and we support him in doing so. However, MI5 and the FBI have both warned about the epic threat posed by China, so will he please answer this simple question: will he place China in the enhanced tier?
Dan Jarvis
To begin on what I hope will be a point of consensus, I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the gratitude he expressed in general terms for the progression of this scheme. I certainly hope that there is cross-party agreement about the importance of this new tool, and I am very grateful for his support. I am also grateful for the work done by the previous Government on the development and subsequent implementation of the National Security Act 2023.
Before I turn to the question that the shadow Home Secretary posed, I just say to him that we are trying, through the use of FIRS and other means and mechanisms, to ensure that the UK is as hard a target as possible, and to make it the most challenging operating environment for those who would do us harm. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I hope he would acknowledge that we have progressed the process of FIRS at pace, despite some accusations from one or two Opposition Members that that was not the case.
I hope that the shadow Home Secretary would acknowledge that the main geographical focus today was on Russia. We covered Iran a number of weeks ago, but in addition to the other remarks I have made about FIRS, the focus has been on Russia. He did not have very much to say about Russia, but I welcome him welcoming the fact that we have specified Russia on the enhanced tier.
For reasons that I completely understand, the shadow Home Secretary asked about China. He will recall the remarks I made to this House on 4 March, where I was very clear that countries will be considered separately and decisions will be taken by this Government based on the evidence. I said then, as I say again now, that I will not speculate on which countries may or may not be specified in future. That is the right way to proceed, and I hope he understands that.
I hope that the shadow Home Secretary recognises that the Government, with the wider strategy we are pursuing on China, are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relationship with China. I did not agree—this will come as no surprise to him—with how he characterised the nature of the relationship with that country. The Government’s policy is clear: we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and his trademark constructive and authoritative tone. Often it is frontline police officers who deal with the consequences of aggressive action by hostile states on Britain’s streets. I specifically welcome the Minister’s announcement that training on state threats activity will be offered by counter-terrorism police to all 45 territorial police forces. Can he provide a further update on the roll-out of that training?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Often where the rubber hits the road is the incredibly important work done by police officers on the beat, and I pay tribute to them and their service. It is important that we ensure as a Government that all police forces are ensuring that those police officers out and about in the course of their duties get the training they require to be able to identify and appropriately respond to matters that may constitute either transnational repression or state-directed activities. I can give her an assurance that we are working with police forces to ensure that that training is taking place at pace. Along with the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), I am liaising with chief constables and police and crime commissioners to ensure that that work is under way. That will provide a valuable tool for those policing our streets, ensuring that they have the requisite skills, training, knowledge and experience, should they encounter the kinds of issues we are discussing today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister, as always, for advance sight of his statement. We on the Lib Dem Benches welcome the further implementation by the Government of the foreign influence registration scheme, but I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Home Secretary has said—very dangerous territory. Last year, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued the excoriating China report, which said that the Government do not have a clear strategy on China and have not devoted sufficient resources to tackling the threat it poses. I will therefore ask the Minister some new questions that the shadow Home Secretary did not.
Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review? As has been mentioned, many are severely concerned by the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, for which the Government have indicated their support. Does the Minister believe that the building of this embassy will encourage the Chinese Communist party to carry on its attempts to subvert our democracy? What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues across Government about blocking this plan and making protecting our democracy a key national security priority?
Can the Minister say more about how the political influence tier will be administered? How do we ensure that every relevant foreign individual signs up to the register? It is right, if there is a top tier of the scheme, that Russia and Iran are on it, but will the Government now go further by proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to funding to prevent foreign interference and to increase transparency in political donations. What plans do the Government have to close loopholes that allow opaque and potentially corrupt funding of political parties, enabling foreign and dark money to influence British politics?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, and I will endeavour to respond to all of them, but if I do not, I will certainly come back to her outside of the Chamber. She asked a number of questions about ongoing activity across Government, and she referenced the China audit, as well as the strategic defence review. I know she would acknowledge that those matters are not within the bailiwick of the Home Office, but sit with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. I can give her a categoric assurance that we address these matters across Government, and we work closely as different Departments. She will know that the Prime Minister made an announcement just recently about the publication of a national security strategy. The Prime Minister has committed to publishing the national security strategy in advance of the NATO summit in June. That document is being worked on across Government, and it will provide, I hope, some of the answers to the questions that the hon. Lady has rightly raised.
The hon. Lady asked about the embassy. I say to her and to all Members across the House that national security has been our core priority throughout that process, which is why the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary jointly submitted written representations to the Planning Inspectorate to reflect those considerations. I hope she will understand that I am limited in what I can say, not least because a final decision on the case will be made in due course by the Deputy Prime Minister, acting in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It will be done in an independent, quasi-judicial role, so I am unable, for legal reasons, to say anything further on that particular matter at this moment.
The hon. Lady helpfully asked about the political influence tier, which will strengthen the resilience of our democratic institutions against covert foreign influence. It will require those in arrangements with foreign powers who conduct, or arrange for others to conduct, political influence activities in the UK to register those activities within 28 days. Most registrations made under the political influence tier will be included on a public register, and I am sure she will recognise the transparency associated with that.
The hon. Lady also asked me about proscribing the IRGC. She will remember, because she responded to it, the statement I made on Iran last month, during which I confirmed that the Government have asked Mr Jonathan Hall to conduct an independent review into the legislative framework around proscription. He is making good progress with that work, and I hope we will be able to update the House further in the near future.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about funding, and she will have seen the comments from the Electoral Commission in the past day or two. There is separate electoral law specifically relating to funding, but we look carefully at these issues and we are working across Government, not least with the work I lead on through the defending democracy taskforce, working with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and in other Departments.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which is of real significance given the increasing external threats that our country faces. Given those threats from hostile state actors, it is more important than ever that we take effective action to protect our critical national infrastructure from cyber-attacks and ransomware attacks. Can the Minister update us on the plans announced in the King’s Speech for a new Bill on cyber-resilience and the other actions being taken to improve our protections in this area?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, albeit one that is not often the source of much debate. This Government take our critical national infrastructure extremely seriously, and we work with all colleagues in all Departments, not least those in the Cabinet Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the Government are absolutely committed to using all our levers to disrupt cyber-threats to that critical national infrastructure, and we welcome the plan announced today by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to introduce a cyber security and resilience Bill. We work closely with the Department on these matters, and we know that that important Bill will help the UK’s digital economy to be one of the most secure in the world, giving us the power to protect our services, our supply chains and our citizens, which is the first and most important job of any Government.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It was good to hear the Minister confirm that the scheme will be kept under review. Two definitional matters will certainly need to be kept under review: first, what counts as being “at the direction” of a foreign power or specified entity, and secondly, in respect of the political tier, what is the extent of the definition of “political influence”? Up until now we have tended to think in terms of influence over elections, parliamentarians or Government decisions, but given the continuing development of technology and new media we can also see the potential for more direct action—direct to the public—which could conceivably have very high-impact effects. Will the Minister keep both those matters under review?
Dan Jarvis
It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. There is a relatively small band of former Security Ministers left in the House, and I think he is the only one in the Chamber at present. I always appreciate his constructive, sensible and reasonable contributions. He is absolutely right: definitions do matter, and we have taken a long time to think very carefully about how best to do this in order to ensure that we define it in the most effective and appropriate way. As he will recall from my opening remarks, we have published today regulations and guidance providing substantial detail, but I look forward to discussing these matters further when we debate them through the affirmative procedure, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will contribute to that process.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Border security is national security. What steps is the Minister taking, along with other Home Office Ministers, to strengthen the enforcement of the UK immigration law against those who seek to promote hostile state threats here in Britain?
Dan Jarvis
My right hon. Friend is right: border security is national security. She will know that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has now completed its Committee stage, and she and other Members will have noted that yesterday the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary hosted an organised immigration summit in London, which was attended by countless international partners and was a very constructive and worthwhile gathering. She will also know of the important work that is now being done by the Border Security Commander, who is working closely with our international allies. We are making good progress with these matters, which we take extremely seriously, and although we will have more to do, I am pleased with the progress that we have made to date.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Two of the four ugly totalitarian sisters have been included in the list so far, and I trust that China and North Korea will both be added to the enhanced tier in the fullness of time; but will the Minister take back to the Government the message that the House is concerned about the building of the biggest Chinese communist embassy in western Europe—in fact, the biggest embassy—in London? It is not clear why the Government needed to call it in on security grounds, given that the local authority wanted to refuse permission completely. Will the Minister also explain the differential between the penalty that people will face when exposed for acting on behalf of a foreign power if they have registered and the penalty that they will face if they have not registered?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience and authority on these matters, and I know he will agree that the implementation of FIRS gives us a critical capability that we have not had previously. It also provides a very clear choice for those who are considering whether they want to engage in this kind of nefarious activity or not. They can declare their activities to the Government, and that is what we want them to do, but if they do not, they will face arrest and imprisonment over a protracted period. That will provide a significant deterrent that we do not currently possess, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others will welcome it.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s points about the embassy, I know he will understand that I am very limited in respect of what I can say. The shadow Home Secretary is shaking his head. I am very limited for legal reasons because a process is under way, and if I say anything to undermine that process there will be significant consequences. However, the right hon. Gentleman has made his point constructively, so let me think about whether there is some mechanism whereby, perhaps on a Privy Council basis, there can be a briefing in which we discuss these matters in a way that is not subject to the scrutiny that the House will rightly bring. As I have said, I am very limited in terms of what I can say, but I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, and will look into whether there is a way in which we can discuss it in another forum.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
While aligning myself with the concerns expressed by the shadow Home Secretary, I am happy to take the Minister at his word. In the last decade, the previous Government badly misjudged Vladimir Putin’s aims regarding the United Kingdom, and his exploitation of our naivety. So that the current Government do not make the same mistake with the Communist party in China, will the Minister commit himself to releasing a full, unredacted Russia report, and an audit and report on the activities of the Conservative Friends of Russia—or, as they were more recently termed, the Westminster Russia Forum?
Dan Jarvis
I think I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, although I would probably need to consider it for a while longer to make an authoritative judgment on whether I am grateful to him or not. The Government’s position—certainly on the publication of the report—is clear, but I am happy to discuss it with him further. Mindful of the comments that he made about previous Governments, I can give him an absolute assurance of how seriously we take these matters, with Russia and other countries. I understand why he mentioned China, and I understand why other Members have mentioned it as well. I hope he understands that the focus today is on Russia, as the focus last month was on Iran, but I am happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On the subject of the political tier, can the Minister say how domestic politicians might be affected—those who have foreign interlocutors, as well as those who are simply involved by virtue of all-party parliamentary groups? As for the enhanced tier, while I appreciate that he is reluctant to be drawn on specifics, can he say whether the scope of what he has in mind might include a foreign jurisdiction with a stated intention to annex the territory of a European neighbour and Commonwealth partner?
Dan Jarvis
I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. With great respect to him, I will not go into the specifics of his second point, because I am particularly keen not to do so, but let me respond to his important question about parliamentarians. Hopefully he, along with other Members on both sides of the House and in the other place, will welcome the fact that for the first time, collectively, we will be able to see, and check, whether those who are seeking to influence behaviour or activities in this place are doing so at the behest of a foreign state. We are not able to do that at present. The fact that we will be able to do it in the future represents a significant step forward, and I hope everyone will recognise that.
On the point about the political influence tier, let me reiterate what I said previously. This will require the registration of activities carried out at the direction of a foreign power that seek to influence Members of this House. That will help protect the integrity of Parliament by ensuring that we are all informed of any attempts to influence us where a foreign power is driving the influence. Where a parliamentarian is named on a registration as a potential target of influence and the registration is to be published, the FIRS case management team will be in contact with that parliamentarian. This is a good and positive step forward for parliamentarians, and I hope that will be recognised across the House.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I welcome the statement from the Minister, but if the Government are so concerned, and rightly so, about malign foreign interference with national security, what does he make of the statement from the Trump Administration that tariff decisions will be contingent on judicial decisions in the UK, or of the letter sent from the White House to US embassies in Europe last week ordering foreign companies with US contracts to obey Trump’s Executive orders not to promote diversity, equality and inclusion, and would those companies require FIRS registration?
Dan Jarvis
I am reluctant to get into the specifics of the way in which particular arrangements may work, as that is not entirely helpful. However, I hear what the hon. Member has said, I will consider it further and I will come back to him with a considered response.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Although I welcome the Government’s invoking and activation of the FIRS scheme, like a curate’s egg, it is good, but there are missing bits. The elephant in the room—and it is a very big elephant—is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and other Conservative Members have said, which is the missing bit about China. The fact is that China is behind all this. We know that China is involved in supporting Russia in the war that is named in this report. It is also behind Iran and the work it has done in destabilising Gaza and so on, and it is behind North Korea.
Therefore, the question for us is: if it is shown that China is a danger and a threat to us internationally, is that the case internally? We know that the United Front Work Department reports directly to President Xi. It is made up of thousands of organisations that set out to disrupt life here in the UK, and it enters into organisations that have influence. We know that it has put a bounty of 1.2 million Hong Kong dollars on the heads of people here who have fled tyranny in China. We know that the illegal police stations still exist that have been dragging in Hong Kong dissidents. We know they have made attacks on dissidents in Manchester, physically and brutally attacking them. We know that China has spies involved inside the House of Commons and outside it as well. We know that slave labour exists in the net zero arrays and the wind farms we are putting up, and we say nothing about that. In fact, we voted to continue with slave labour last time around. The truth is that we have a real problem because China is at the epicentre of everything to disrupt democracy and freedom. Why is China not in the statement today?
Dan Jarvis
I always appreciate the contributions made by the right hon. Gentleman. As I have explained to the House, in addition to announcements about FIRS in a more general sense, the focus today has fundamentally been on Russia. The House will have heard the comments he has made, and I hope he will accept that this Government take these matters incredibly seriously. I hope he has heard the remarks that I made, both earlier and in my previous statement in response to the threat from Iran, about how we will consider countries on an individual basis and take evidence-based decisions about how best to proceed.
I am sorry that I will not be able to speculate on which countries may be specified in the future, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the announcement we have made offers real value in three particular areas. There is the point about transparency, and he will have noted the point on the political tier about requiring all countries to register. He will also have noted the point about disruption and the point about deterrence. This policy will introduce a difficult choice for those who are seeking to influence the UK in a way that has not previously been the case. That is the right way to proceed, but as I say, we keep these matters under very close review. I am always happy to discuss them outwith this Chamber should he wish to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Point of Order
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very worrying media reports have emerged overnight that the Iranian regime may be contemplating a military strike on our base on Diego Garcia. For instance, The Telegraph has reported:
“A senior Iranian official said military commanders have been asked to target the joint UK-US base, which sits on Britain’s Chagos Islands, in an attempt to deter Donald Trump from striking Iran.”
Moreover, in the last hour or so—with Foreign Office questions conveniently out of the way—there are emerging media reports that the Government may have come to a so-called deal with Mauritius over the future of the Chagos islands themselves. If that is true, the UK Parliament has yet again been kept in the dark about the future of what is still, today, British sovereign territory and a vital strategic installation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask if you, or indeed Mr Speaker, have been given any indication that the Government intend to come to this House to make a statement tonight, or at the very latest tomorrow, about, first, an implied military threat to the Chagos islands, and secondly, a legal and diplomatic threat to the Chagos islands, which are and should remain fundamentally British?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Of course, the Chamber has just been hearing a statement that was in part about threats posed by Iran to the United Kingdom and its interests. However, I can inform him that the Chair has not received any notification of a statement on the specific matter he raises. He will know that those on the Treasury Bench have been listening to his point carefully. As an experienced Member of this House, he will also be considering other ways in which he can make sure that this matter is raised.
Bills Presented
Transport (Duty to Cooperate)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a duty on transport authorities and other specified persons to cooperate to reduce transport disruption and to ensure the effective operation of transport networks; to provide for reporting requirements in connection with that duty; to require the publication of assessments of expected transport disruption resulting from maintenance, construction, and other works related to transport infrastructure and ancillary services; and for connected purposes.
As the Member of Parliament for Runnymede and Weybridge, my mission is to keep them moving. We rely on our transport networks to get to work, school or college and doctor’s appointments, or just to see friends and family, whether by road, rail or even air. We are dependent on our transport networks. Discussions about critical infrastructure often focus on big, apparently unprecedented events, such as the recent power failure at Heathrow, but even the smallest road is critical infrastructure if someone cannot leave their house because of an engineering diversion route.
We all welcome work to improve our roads and transport network, and we of course recognise that this may cause some disruption. We understand that there will be temporary disruption for unexpected emergency works, such as a power cut or a gas leak. However, all too often our transport infrastructure in Runnymede and Weybridge is brought to a halt due to multiple planned works happening at the same time, or planned utility works causing recurrent disruption through multiple providers—gas, electricity, water, broadband—digging up the same road over and over again. Disruption should be avoided and minimised, by authorities and providers talking to each other and co-ordinating works. Ensuring co-ordination when road and rail works take place is the purpose of my Bill.
Sadly, in Runnymede and Weybridge, we have loads of examples where co-ordination has not taken place, despite repeated assurances that authorities do co-ordinate and discuss issues regularly. We have had full M25 closures coinciding with mainline rail engineering work, despite reassurances otherwise. Roads in some areas of Chertsey have been repeatedly dug up, often under the guise of urgent works, from gas to water to electricity. Perhaps most infuriatingly, authorities or utilities sometimes do not adequately staff works or leave them unattended, meaning that when the signals failed at Painshill roundabout, and separately in Weybridge, it took hours to resolve because the right equipment and staff were not on site to fix the problem. We understand and expect there to be some disruption, but I believe better planning and co-ordination can prevent and avoid much of what we have seen locally.
Surrey county council has been working hard to address issues on our local road network. I thank the council, and in particular Councillor Jonathan Hulley for his leadership and work on this issue. Surrey has established a new taskforce to drive better co-ordination and communication of works across our road network. Surrey, along with National Highways and six major utility providers, has called on the Department for Transport to make changes to systems and processes to reduce the negative impact of emergency utility works across the county. It has called for changes to digital services used to manage highways works in England to enable prior notice of urgent works where possible, improving communication and co-ordination. Surrey has also called for, among other things: mandatory onsite signage for emergency works to explain delays, the lead agency to improve information for road users, and of course, a requirement for swift completion of works to reduce disruption and support economic productivity.
I fully support the proposals, which could resolve many local issues, but they alone cannot achieve the co-ordination required across networks to address all the issues I have highlighted. That is why I am bringing forward the Bill, calling for a statutory duty to co-ordinate. Under the duty, National Highways could not have informed me that it was unaware of the impact excess trains on the Chertsey branch line would have on level crossings and the local road network on the same weekend as a motorway closure, because it would have been required to communicate, co-ordinate and assess the likely impact of its actions. Under the duty, Network Rail would not have been able to inform me that while it usually does communicate with other authorities, on “this occasion” it forgot. Combined with the work undertaken by Surrey county council, under the duty, utility companies would not have been able to place repeated and unannounced works alongside major diversion routes with impunity. When utility companies dig up the road, they would need to check if anything else needed to be fixed at the same time.
Our transport links are the lifeblood of our communities and our economy. In 2021, National Highways estimated that total delays on its network alone cost £3 billion each year. Add to that the cost of delays on local road networks—hours missed from work, goods stuck in transit—and the value of addressing the issue is clear, if not just for the benefit to our communities but to the UK economy as a whole. I ask the Government and colleagues across the House to support the Bill and the work of colleagues in Surrey to address these issues, and to ensure our national transport infrastructure operates effectively and efficiently for all. Let us keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That Dr Ben Spencer, Rebecca Paul and Gregory Stafford present the Bill.
Dr Ben Spencer accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed (Bill 216).
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 110 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 110 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Andrew Griffith has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way? [Laughter.]
Sir Desmond Swayne
When did weights and measures become metrology? Is this use of newspeak deliberate to cover an Orwellian attempt to cloak this huge grab for power, and to what end?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for that intervention very early on in proceedings. I cannot provide a definitive answer to the right hon. Gentleman on the naming of the Bill, but I promise that I will find out and put it to him in writing. But he will know that the Bill was, I believe, originally planned by the previous Government because of the need to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom as a result of our exit from the European Union. It is something we need in our toolkit, so, far from being Orwellian, it is a pragmatic, practical proposal. I look forward to now making the case for it in more detail.
The primary mission of this Government, and the driving force of my Department, is stronger economic growth: not just growth that looks good on paper, but growth that is seen and is felt on our high streets, in our towns and cities, and in the communities we serve; growth that reverses 15 years of stagnation, with all the negative consequences we all felt during that time. To do that, we need an economy in which shops and small businesses can compete on a more level playing field with online marketplaces and the big tech giants. We need an economy that promotes investment and innovation, but at the same time ensures consumers and businesses have real, modern protections. That is why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is a small but hugely important piece of legislation, one that will further cement the UK’s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is giving an important introduction to the Bill. Does he agree that international alignment in the standards we are discussing on scientific matters is essential for the smooth operation of modern advanced manufacturing?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe I am correct in saying that he is not only a metrologist, but the first metrologist elected to Parliament. I put no heavy expectations on his speech today, but we are all looking forward to it with interest.
My hon. Friend is right that there are areas where we will choose to work with international standards, and there will be areas where we choose to diverge, but that decision is made possible only by having the powers to begin with. No decisions will be made in this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, as to how we will do that; however, without it, we would not have the toolkit to make those decisions. The essence of these proposed laws is that we are taking back control for the House of Commons and Parliament to make these kinds of decisions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware from the Second Reading debate in the Lords that a number of what I shall gently refer to as Eurosceptic peers have expressed concerns that the Bill is a form of dynamic alignment with the European Union, and that, far from taking back control over which standards are involved and which guidelines are necessary, we will be abdicating control in favour of whatever the European Union decides. Can he set our minds at rest over those concerns? I am sure he would not wish to be diverted along such a dead-end route.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he always brings wisdom to these debates. I can absolutely give him the assurance that the Bill makes no decision as to how we should use these powers. The reason we are bringing it forward today is the same reason the previous Conservative Government first proposed a Bill of this kind: having left the European Union, we need the powers to properly regulate these products in this way; without this legislation, we would not necessarily have the ability to do that.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On that specific point, further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that presumably means that the Government will press for recognition of UK standards where they prevail and where we think we are doing the job better. There will absolutely be occasions where we can learn from others, and other occasions where they can learn from us. Is that the Government’s intention? Will the Secretary of State make that clear now?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am more than happy to make that clear. We see that in a number of areas—it is the case across the whole field of regulation. Let us look at AI, which is topical right now: we have chosen a different regulatory path in the UK from the European Union, which is to our economic advantage. I am very confident in the approach that we are taking. I am sure that when I get to the provisions of the Bill, and in particular when it comes to weights and measures, the whole House will be united in being able to say that we believe that traditional British standards are particularly important to us.
I say again, however, that having the power to set standards in itself makes no decision as to how these powers are used. We can all clearly recognise the need to repatriate these powers to our own statute book.
Jonathan Reynolds
I was going to make a little progress, but I cannot resist the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just want to raise a small point. When I was doing some work on this matter for a previous Government, looking at what we could do with our regulations and standards on leaving the EU, it became apparent that the UK is behind only America and China globally in setting standards for the rest of the world. To what degree is the Secretary of State planning to enhance that, rather than returning to any European usage of standards, when we already dominate the field?
Jonathan Reynolds
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now that our intention is to cement the UK’s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety. I am sure we would all recognise the tremendous benefits for both consumers and businesses that come from being a jurisdiction whose consumer protections are widely recognised and where people have confidence that the goods and services they buy will be to the highest standard possible. Where we see gaps in our provision, because of the substantial change that has occurred with our leaving the European Union, we would surely want to fill those gaps so that we are in a position to continue our success in this area.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister gives the House the assurance that the idea is not to take us back to EU laws or to have EU laws imposed on the United Kingdom, and yet the Bill heavily references EU laws. How does he explain that?
Jonathan Reynolds
I can explain it very clearly. Colleagues who are interested in this legislation will have followed the proceedings in the other place and the discussions on this area. I put the case very straightforwardly: we do not have the ability without this Bill to regulate product standards in a whole range of areas. There are some cases where there will be a strong consumer or business demand for alignment with other jurisdictions; there will also be cases where we wish to diverge, because we see that as being in our economic interests.
However, we surely all accept that we cannot have a position where we do not have the ability to regulate key products, and in particular products that have come from the new technology that is available and the opportunities that come from that. Once again, I say politely to anyone on the Opposition Benches who is not quite reassured that the previous Conservative Government were planning a similar Bill to fill this exact gap in the statute book.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I would like to make two points. First, this House can do what it wants. It does not need this Bill to regulate anything. To say that is does simply is not true. Secondly, on the question of whether the Bill will lead to dynamic realignment with the EU, can the Secretary of State explain what clause 2(7)(a) is for? It seems to me that it could be used to dynamically realign with EU regulations.
Sir John Hayes
I wish to give the Secretary of State time to read the clause. He owes me now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The key thing is that we must not use EU standards as the default. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) is right that we have the authority to make our own standards, and we often do so very well. But the risk is that where we have not yet done that, the EU standard will become the default position. The Minister can make it crystal clear to us today that that is not the case.
Jonathan Reynolds
As ever, I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for his courtesy. To my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), I say that clause 2(7) says:
“Product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if—”.
It clearly says “may” and “if”. Again, I say that there will be times when it is in our economic interest to have a close relationship with the product standards in, for instance, the European Union or another jurisdiction. There will also be times when it is not. That will be our choice. I think we would all recognise the absence of powers without this Bill.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman makes reference to the ability of this House to make regulations. We can, of course, do so by primary legislation. There was a parliamentarian who said that
“the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
The Secretary of State should agree with that, because it was he who said it.
Jonathan Reynolds
That was obviously part of a very wise set of remarks that I made from the Dispatch Box. But, yes, we must recognise that. I say again, because the Bill has been through the other place, that changes have been made as a result of that feedback: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers; we have introduced a consultation requirement; we have provided for additional affirmative resolution procedures; and we have said that we will publish a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that regulation is proportionate, evidence-based and developed through consultation. Because of the process that we have been through, we have responded to the kind of concerns that I was wisely articulating in relation to primary legislation.
Perhaps it will be of use to the House if I say a little about that journey and the work of the other place in this regard. I wish to thank in particular my ministerial colleague, Lord Leong, for his great efforts in taking the Bill through the other place. I also thank the many Members and Committees of the other House for their assistance in creating what I believe is strong and effective legislation—legislation that will benefit millions of UK businesses, tens of millions of consumers, and, of course, all those who enjoy a pint or two at the pub.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is right to praise the House of Lords for making sure that the great British pint is in this Bill as an exclusion from the metrology regulations. However, this will not satisfy the metric martyrs. The Minister will remember that the ability to sell in imperial measures was a big issue a few years ago. Why is it that there is an elaborate schedule to the product regulations, but not to metrology, and why in particular is food generically not included in the exemptions from what the Minister proposes to do?
Jonathan Reynolds
We would say with confidence that there was never a danger to the pint, but because of the concerns that were raised in the other place and perhaps by some colleagues here, I am more than happy to have made the changes to assure everyone present and everyone watching that the pint will be defended and secured in the Bill. I have to say that I have received no entreaties from businesses that they wish to sell in imperial measurements. However, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is an absence of provisions in the Bill, he can write to me and I shall write back to him and hopefully be able to reassure him. I think he may be misplaced in thinking that that is a principal issue for UK businesses.
As all hon. Members know, the digital age in which we live has created significant growth opportunities. The consumer and technology landscapes that we have today are almost unrecognisable from those we had 20 or 30 years ago, so the products that we buy and the way in which we buy them are evolving rapidly. That means that the relevant rules and regulations must adapt, too. If we are to protect consumers and businesses, especially smaller firms, that is essential.
As we have examined in some detail, product regulation and metrology are policy areas that have largely been repatriated from the EU following our withdrawal in 2021. Since then the UK Government have simply not had the necessary powers to continue regulating these areas effectively. We have brought forward this legislation so that we can respond to anticipated changes in the global regulatory landscape. That is why, to be frank, I am somewhat bemused by the reasoned amendments tabled today.
The Bill will ensure that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues. It gives us the power to better regulate items such as potentially dangerous baby sleep products and toys. It will enable us to reduce burdens on business and keep up with technological developments, for example by updating the outdoor noise regulations in Great Britain. It will align testing methods across the UK, which was overwhelmingly supported in our recent call for evidence, and it will protect the public from noise pollution from products like lawn mowers and power generators.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I have only closely scrutinised the Bill today, so I am just bringing myself up to date on this. It appears to give the Secretary of State the power to ban any product he wishes for whatever reason. We make law in this place not for when we are dealing with a Minister of the moral calibre of the right hon. Gentleman, but on the basis that we might have someone who lacks such qualities; that is who we legislate for. Is it true that this Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to ban literally any product, and that all that would have to be done is to notify this House?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concern and his regard. I believe that if we were of the view that a product was a danger to the public, the right hon. Gentleman would expect me as Secretary of State in my Department to take action. If he is concerned about provisions in the Bill, he can look to the changes that have been made. It has been through an extensive scrutiny process in the other place, particularly in relation to the powers and delegated powers given to the Secretary of State. I think he recognises the case we are making for the safety of the public; indeed, it is why Opposition Members themselves recognise the need for a Bill of this kind.
The Bill will help to create a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces. Critically, we are able to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe and non-complying goods that are sold online. This could include asking sites to verify third-party sellers before allowing them to list their goods or to have a product safety reporting function for customers on their sites. One example is e-scooters and e-bikes, which like many products are reliant on lithium-ion batteries. These batteries have been attributed as the cause of a number of fires in recent years, both in households and on public transport.
While we know that the vast majority of products are safe, in recent years we have seen some goods mis-sold by a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers and sellers. As a result, low-standard, high-risk products have been able to enter the UK market. Some people have paid for this with their homes and, in some cases, their lives. I think we would all recognise that that is unconscionable.
I want to pay tribute to the family of Sofia Duarte. Sofia tragically died when a bicycle that had been converted into an e-bike burst into flames. The bike’s lithium battery pack failed, causing a fire on new year’s day 2023. I know that the whole House will join me in recognising the bravery and courage of Sofia’s family in campaigning for change in memory of their daughter and in fighting for better regulation of e-bikes, along with the batteries and chargers associated with them. I also thank the London Fire Brigade for its campaigning on this issue in recent years. It has been on the frontline, seeing at first hand the devastation that has been wrought by some of these products.
This Bill is about keeping the public safe. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has taken action in this area already. It has issued 26 withdrawal notices on eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 sellers. This has removed two dangerous models of e-bike battery from sale, and I am glad that the legislation we are discussing today will allow us to consider further steps on enforcement.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I have campaigned for greater regulation of bicycles, which have got away with killing individuals, not to mention e-bikes. I want to pick the Secretary of State up on a particular point. I do not disagree with him on the need for regulation, and it should have been done some time ago, so we are as one on that. However, I still do not think that he has quite answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just now. Why do we need to have a wide-sweeping Bill like this if we could do it already in the House by vote?
If we have a powerful enough argument to say to both Houses, “This must be done,” then they will see it through very quickly by the power of persuasion, but they would have the right to vote on it and to disagree. The Bill takes that right away and achieves the same result, but only by way of a diktat from whoever is in power—and, by the way, I agreed with what the Secretary of State said in opposition.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry that we have not convinced the right hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that the Government need powers in this area. We need to be able to respond to fast-moving changes in technology and regulation. The public would expect me, as Secretary of State, as well as my Department and the Government, to have these powers to keep them safe. Perhaps we have not convinced him at this stage, but he can look at proceedings in the other place and in Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will give way one more time before we come to the amendments that were made in the Lords.
Jerome Mayhew
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he has failed to persuade Opposition Members in this place, but does he accept that he has also failed to persuade the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place? That Committee, which is chaired by Labour, said last month:
“We remain of the view”
that
“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the…legislature to the Executive.”
Why does he think the Committee remains against his view?
Jonathan Reynolds
I find that when political parties go into opposition, all of a sudden they seem less keen on the Government having decisive powers to take action in a whole range of areas. We have listened carefully to the criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and significant changes have been made to the legislation, which I am happy to take the hon. Member through. They relate to the number of Henry VIII powers, the consultation requirement and the additional affirmative resolution procedure. We are always seeking feedback.
I will now go through some of the other amendments that were made in the other place.
Jonathan Reynolds
The question I always have for the right hon. Gentleman is: is it going to be good? I will give way one more time.
Graham Stuart
It will be brief. Forget the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; what about the Secretary of State’s colleague, Lord Leong? He said in the House of Lords that he did not think the Bill was right. In what way does it need to be improved? Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the extent of these powers? Even from this short debate, it is clear how wide-ranging and over the top they are.
Jonathan Reynolds
On Second Reading, we have a Bill that is even stronger than the one that started in the other House. Once again, I thank all our colleagues in the other place for their constructive feedback and contributions to the debate. I will not go through every change that has been made, but I will mention some aspects of the Bill that have been strengthened.
First, we have amended the Bill to ensure that there is more parliamentary scrutiny, and we have provided for a statutory consultation requirement to ensure that regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be that additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the Bill. Secondly, the Bill now includes a requirement for me, as the Secretary of State, to publish a statement setting out how my Department expects to identify and assess high-risk products.
Finally, contrary to previous suggestions from the Conservative party, the great British pint will clearly not be affected by this legislation, whether that is ale, cider or indeed milk. We do not believe that the Bill in its original form posed any threat to the pint, but we do not want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer, so we accepted an amendment tabled in the other place that will give the pint statutory protection. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in a few weeks’ time, when I hope you will confirm to the House that the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will all be able to raise a pint—protected under statute—to the Bill. I did inquire about whether I was allowed to bring a pint with me to the Chamber to illustrate the point, but that is apparently not in order; only the Chancellor has that ability. Given the week I am having, perhaps we will look at that at a later date.
To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the Government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post Brexit. It will also give us the tools we need to better regulate modern-day consumer products. The Bill will help to create a fairer environment for high street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and provide better protection for millions of consumers. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] because it will provide for regulatory alignment with the European Union, and it has been condemned three times by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee as a skeleton Bill which provides, without justification, inappropriately wide powers for Ministers to re-write the regulatory regimes for product safety and the weights and measures of goods by regulations.”
Too often when the public think of Parliament, they think of out-of-touch power and bad laws. The Bill is the archetype of everything that is wrong with Westminster. There should be an unwritten rule in this postcode: never trust a Bill with a convoluted name. This Bill is no exception.
Although it professes to simplify our regulatory framework, the reality is that this is an EU Trojan horse of a Bill, which will sabotage our Brexit freedoms, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, disrespect Parliament, befuddle British business with uncertainty and take us back to being a Brussels rule-taker—all from a party that voted 48 times to overturn the will of the British people.
Andrew Griffith
I will not, but before I get into further—[Interruption.] I will say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Before I get into detail, let me welcome the Government’s U-turn on their plan to scrap the great British pint. Let us hope that that is the first of many. When I raised that on 26 February, Labour Members described it as “a conspiracy theory”. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said it was “scaremongering”, and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), said that an amendment was no more needed than a
“law to say that the sun must rise in the morning.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 812.]
The truth is that the Government were caught red-handed trying to ditch our British pint by this back-door Bill. Had the Opposition not fought back, the power to crush the British pint would have rested on the whim of a Minister’s pen. Welcome though that U-turn is, let us not ignore the fact that the Labour Government wanted to give themselves the power in the first place.
Andrew Griffith
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner).
Laurence Turner
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I hope he will also give way to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Will he tell the House what possible motive he thinks a Labour Government would have for scrapping the pint?
Andrew Griffith
The Labour motive is all too plain to see. This is a Labour party that voted 48 times to reject the will of the British people, led by the Prime Minister, who sought a second referendum to overturn that will. I accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield was not in the House at the time, but he might want to spend some time with his colleagues in the Tea Room and hear precisely what happened.
Andrew Griffith
No, I will make some progress.
The anti-pub, anti-hospitality agenda goes far beyond this Bill. The jobs tax, the threshold change, the attack on seasonal and flexible working, the more than doubling of business rates, the war on pub banter and the garden smoking ban are all from this Government. Our hospitality industry—the Secretary of State is smirking—deserves infinitely better than this from this Government.
Andrew Griffith
I am happy to give way if the right hon. Gentleman talks about what he will do to repeal the Employment Rights Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member was a senior member of the previous Government and played a well-known role in the mini Budget, as well as a number of other things that that Government did. Will he confirm that they were planning exactly the same piece of legislation because of an absence in the statute book?
Andrew Griffith
Once again, the Secretary of State has failed to engage on the key issue, which is that British businesses—[Interruption.] It is not funny. British businesses are bleeding out, business confidence is at a record low, unemployment is rising, and all the Government have to talk about is the past, not what they are currently delivering.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend was asked just now whether the previous Government were likely to have introduced this legislation. May I set the record straight? Had we done so, the Secretary of State would have voted against it.
Andrew Griffith
Let me move on. The biggest flaw of many in this Bill is that, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have both identified, it hands over too much power with too little accountability. There is
“a real need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which in recent years has weighed too heavily in favour of delegated powers…excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation—”
such as this Bill—
“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Attorney General. They are taken from a speech that he made in October, while in government, about the importance of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. No one who considered that speech could fail to agree.
The Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has slammed the Bill not once, not twice, but three times, including after the Government’s changes were made. To put this into context, the wide powers contained in this 15-page Bill will allow Ministers unilaterally to amend product safety regulation, impose obligations on online marketplaces, meddle with standards for weights and measures or entirely align British regulatory standards with the European Union, posing a threat to the integrity of the UK internal market. It is 15 pages of the most egregious Whitehall overreach.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another hammer blow to British businesses? We have had the Labour Government introducing £25 billion of tax with the employers’ national insurance contribution, £5 billion of costs with workers’ rights and a never-ending increase in energy bills as they drive forward on their net zero fantasy. Now they will be able to change regulation more or less on a whim, whenever they feel like it, destroying certainty and confidence for British businesses.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes a serious and important point. I take the Secretary of State in good faith when he says that he desires for his Government to grow the economy—every Government should, and I believe that this Government should as well—but he must recognise that every single action he takes will take us further away from that goal by piling on the red tape and increasing the level of tax. The regulatory jeopardy in this Bill will do the same, by simply making it impossible to know what product regulations will look like. How can any business plan for the future when the powers offered up by the Bill introduce such a prospect of unpredictable regulatory change?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that someone sitting at home watching this will be worried by the argument that it is more important to stick to some anti-EU dogma than it is to protect their children from dangerous products, or to keep dangerous electric bikes off the market and regulate for their safety?
Andrew Griffith
With the very best will in the world, I think the hon. Lady can do a great deal better than that. As hon. Members have said, this House can legislate. If there are dangerous products, bring those use cases here, and I believe that across the House we will legislate rapidly to protect our constituents’ safety. However, our constituents did not send us here to pass a 15-page Bill full of skeleton powers to give the Secretary of State an unlimited ability to regulate without having to consult this place.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge for many of us who were here during the previous Parliament, when the hon. Member was in office and had the power to diverge, is that we watched what happened and we saw the cost to British business. That is why the previous Government decided in the end to abandon the British charter mark, is it not? Would he care to tell the House how much proceeding with his plans would have cost British business? It was £1.6 billion, in case he does not know. British businesses need to hear that we get it. They do not want more paperwork; they want less.
Andrew Griffith
I am genuinely intrigued, and I shall sit here and listen to the hon. Lady’s speech later on. Does she want divergence? Does she want us to use our Brexit freedoms, or does she seek to go back to being a rule taker and converge?
We have not heard a compelling argument from the Secretary of State today as to why these powers should be granted. It is right that we in this House adopt the precautionary principle, and if the Secretary of State, or the Minister in winding up, can give us some more compelling use cases, I am sure we would consider that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is all very important. There has been some merriment about the pint, but in the novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell, the hero goes into a pub, and somebody there laments the fact that the despotic regime has just abolished the pint and forced people to drink litres. The road to serfdom is paved by many steps such as this. By the way, when I was Minister for consumer affairs many years ago, we regularly banned things. We did not need this Bill.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes the perfect point that this is precisely what the road to serfdom looks like, whether it is serfdom to an individual Minister at a moment in time or serfdom to an unelected Brussels bureaucratic elite. Why would we give up the powers of this House, the reason why we are sent here, and the ability to hold the Government to account?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Member described the Bill as a Trojan horse—it is more like a Trojan donkey. Does he agree that clause 2(7) is a particular problem, because it appears to take European Union regulations as the baseline for determining safety? To many of us, the assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for any safety regulations that we might want to make seems somewhat bizarre.
Andrew Griffith
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and we can contrast the number of references to the European Union throughout the Bill with, for example, our biggest single country trading partner—the United States.
Jonathan Reynolds
I want to directly answer the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and provide clarification that I have just sought. Clause 2(7)(a) is not about alignment; it is about recognition. We already recognise certain EU product requirements on a mutual recognition basis, and where it is of benefit to do so, that is what the clause allows. Rather than take European standards as the basis for our own and align with them, it enables that where it is recognised that we have the interest. I can write to him in detail if he wishes.
Andrew Griffith
On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I thank the Secretary of State for intervening. It is important that we legislate with full understanding of what the law says, but the point still stands on the overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends of this great nation.
Sir John Hayes
On that note, the point is the one I made to the Secretary of State: where, as the impact assessment suggests, regulations are moving at pace—the Secretary of State repeated that—we will default to a European set of standards. That is the problem, and that is certainly implied in the Bill’s impact assessment. I sought the Secretary of State’s assurance that that will not happen. If it does not happen, will there be no rules or regulations? How will that work in practice?
Andrew Griffith
We are having the proper debate through these interventions that perhaps we should have had when the Secretary of State was introducing the Bill. That illustrates the point about putting a vast amount of ambiguity—even if it is well intentioned—into the law and how things will operate, and for a reason of which we know not. If there are instances of, for example, e-scooters catching fire in people’s halls, this House has the ability to legislate, and legislate fast where necessary, against those particular harms at that particular moment in time. My right hon. Friend, with his many years of experience in this House, understands that point, and I think that was what he was saying.
Sammy Wilson
Although Opposition Members will perhaps deliberately choose to believe that the words and assurances given are ambiguous, does the hon. Member accept that even Government Members in the House of Lords believe there is an ambiguity that needs to be cleared up? One comment was:
“The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 712.]
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member makes exactly the right point. This is a blank cheque Bill and a Trojan horse Bill. It is simply not clear under this Secretary of State, or any Secretary of State in the future once these powers have been ceded by this place, how they will be implemented. There is a real asymmetry in the constant litany of references to the European Union—a valued trading partners of ours, but only one valued trading partner of ours, as I hope the Secretary of State is about to reveal over the coming days. Tomorrow we understand that tariffs will be imposed by the United States on British exporters. If that is the case, that would be the worst failure of trade policy for a generation. It is businesses, jobs and our economy that will all pay the price. The Chancellor’s emergency Budget will not have lasted a single week because she made no provision for the imposition of tariffs—if that is indeed what is to come.
It is frankly outrageous that the Government have failed to make a statement about where we are, despite the Prime Minister’s official spokesman briefing the Lobby, and the Business and Trade Secretary himself finding time this morning to conduct a round of media interviews. If the Secretary of State would like to comment on the progress of US talks, I will happily give way.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is a little off-topic for a Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman could have just listened to the “Today” programme this morning. He would have heard me articulate those concerns. We are engaged with our US counterparts, more so than any other country, in those negotiations. He will know that I will not share the content or detail of those talks. The policy originates with the President of the United States and we are responding to and engaging with it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it comes from the mandate and the agenda of the US Administration.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State that we are debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and not necessarily tariffs.
Andrew Griffith
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am nearing a conclusion in any case. However, I do think that the issue of product safety—the rules and regulations that govern our economy, as the Secretary of State himself said—is intrinsically linked with trade, mutual recognition and growing the economy by removing trade frictions and barriers rather than erecting them and subjecting businesses to the tyranny of simply not understanding the corpus of rules and regulations.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he, like me, hope that the Liberal Democrats, despite their hobby-horse love of the EU, do not allow the EU flavouring of the Bill to blind them to the frankly illiberal Executive-enhancing, legislature-diminishing aspect of the Bill? If they genuinely aspire to being His Majesty’s Opposition, they will join us this evening in voting against Second Reading.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope, as the Secretary of State slightly alluded to in his remarks about the ability of a country to make its own rules and regulations, that we will soon be back in the House with a Government statement at which we can celebrate the mother of all Brexit benefits: securing the ability to conduct our own trade. I look forward to hearing from the Liberal Democrats exactly how much they welcome that ability on behalf of their constituents.
Christine Jardine
Although I cannot speak immediately for all Liberal Democrats, it puzzles us that the official Opposition do not seem to recognise that if they had legislated properly when we left the European Union, this legislation would not be necessary. Do they not accept any responsibility for where we are today?
Andrew Griffith
We will not accept any lessons from the Liberal Democrats about what it takes to Brexit successfully and go back to being an independent nation, but if that is what the hon. Lady will speak about, I look forward to hearing it.
To conclude, the Bill is flawed in so many ways. With the best will in the world, Ministers should not be proposing it, particularly given their failure so far to protect us from US tariffs. It is a bad Bill from a Government who are already failing. It is a travesty for anyone who cares about respect for parliamentary democracy and the role of this House versus Ministers. It is, as I said, a Trojan horse Bill that will sabotage our Brexit freedoms and take us back to being an EU rule taker, which the British people had long put behind us. I urge the House to back our reasoned amendment and end this terrible Bill.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I welcome this essential and timely Bill, which upgrades our product safety, regulation and metrology—a word that I admit I had to look up, but it does not take much to understand it—framework, delivering a much-needed boost to protections for consumers and ensuring that every company in the UK, whether they operate online or on our high streets, upholds the high product safety and quality standards that working people in this country deserve and that have been absent for too long.
Whether it is faulty carbon monoxide alarms, dangerous children’s toys or the issue of spontaneously combusting e-bikes and scooters, which has been raised with me by my constituents in Worsley and Eccles, examples of hazardous products being on sale are far too common. Clearly, there is an urgent need to raise the bar on consumer product safety in this country. The Bill achieves that aim, establishing a modern safety regime that will enable companies to operate safely, while accounting for the post-Brexit regulatory landscape.
In an increasingly turbulent international trading environment, it is imperative that the Government update the UK’s product regulations. However, since our exit from the EU, the Government have not had the necessary powers to meet the challenges presented by the fast-moving global product safety standards environment. That has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I have been in this House for a little while; I have sat on both sides of the House, and I have been in government. I have never come across a Government who have failed to get regulation through when they feel it is necessary to do so, but it goes through with debate. We cannot just impose regulations because we think it is right. There has to be some measure of whether it is balanced and whether it works, and that is normally done by this House. Why give it to the Government alone?
Michael Wheeler
If the system we have in place was working, we would not be here debating this, and we would not see these shoddy products on sale or these fires. The only explanation is either that the system does not work or the last Government failed in their duty to the people of this country.
As I was saying, this has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections in rapidly emerging areas of product safety that need reaction—for example, those related to new technologies such as AI and lithium-ion batteries. I therefore support the Bill’s provisions to enable the Government to meet the fast-moving challenges of the day in these areas.
Graham Stringer
I am interested that my hon. Friend mentions AI. There are three major systems around the world being proposed for artificial intelligence regulation: those in China, the EU and the United States. If we have to make a choice for our own framework, which might be different from those, for the safety of people in industry, why should that not be done on the Floor of this House rather than through delegated regulation? It is one of the most important issues that will face us in the coming years.
Michael Wheeler
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will happily admit to the House that I am not an expert on AI. I do, however, recognise that the fast-developing nature of AI as it relates to consumer safety and product regulation requires a rapid response, which is potentially not necessarily suited to a full debate on the Floor of the House.
Graham Stuart
Can the hon. Gentleman give a single instance of a Government at any time in the past decade not being able to take action on a seriously risky product? I cannot think of one.
Michael Wheeler
I can think of several—for example, the lack of regulation around the e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets that are causing fires. We are in a fast-moving environment, and we are creating a framework that will future-proof our system.
Ms Creasy
I want to help my hon. Friend out, because he was not here when the previous Government introduced the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which deleted more than 4,000 laws and used statutory instruments to replace them. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who was a Minister at the time, is nodding his head as if that process was acceptable. He is now challenging a colleague who was not here at the time by saying that somehow it is not acceptable now, but it was acceptable then. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned and slightly sceptical about the Opposition’s sudden agreement that statutory instruments are perhaps not the best way forward.
Michael Wheeler
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are dealing with a regulatory black hole that was left behind, and the absence of a framework is letting down the consumers and people of this country—[Interruption.] I was about to say that I am sure we would all agree on that, but that is potentially a stretch in this debate and in this Chamber.
I hope that we do agree that consumers should be able to buy products online without worrying about their safety, and that product standards should not be bypassed or compromised on any platform, digital or otherwise. However, research by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that 81%—eight in 10—of products for sale on online marketplaces between 2021 and 2022 failed to meet safety standards, which underlines the need for the Bill. We cannot allow companies to circumvent essential safety standards, presenting a public health risk just because they sell their products online.
However, the Bill is not just about safety, critical though that is; it is also about ensuring fairness. We simply cannot continue with a product safety regime that enables online marketplaces to undercut bricks-and-mortar retailers, or that allows rogue traders to out-compete responsible retailers with unsafe, low-quality products. That is unfair on consumers, reputable manufacturers and the small high street businesses that must compete with the online giants. With online sales already making up over a quarter of total retail sales in 2023, we must level that playing field now, providing our high streets with a long overdue boost to their competitiveness.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about product regulation, but is the issue that he is highlighting not actually about enforcement? I have no issue with legislating for product regulation safety standards, but they already exist. In fact, he says that there are products that do not meet the safety standards, so we know that those standards exist. The issue that he highlights is purely around enforcement, which this Bill does nothing to address.
Michael Wheeler
I disagree that the issue is “purely” around enforcement. Obviously, there are elements of enforcement, but separating out one part of a package—a regulatory framework that will future-proof us from other issues—is not a coherent argument.
To conclude, it is vital that we create a product safety, regulatory and metrology framework that protects consumers, encourages fair competition and meets the changing picture internationally. This Bill delivers that framework, and I look forward to supporting it further in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare an interest having spent 40 years in the toy industry and, in another life, having been the chair and the president of the British Toy & Hobby Association. It was a wonderful job—the second-best job. The best job is being the first ever Liberal Democrat MP for Wokingham.
Clive Jones
I doubt that very much.
Nearly a decade since the Brexit referendum, this House is still grappling with what it means to be outside of the European Union. Away from the big headlines about trade deals and newly erected borders, the technical nitty-gritty of product safety and metrology is ever more important now that we must decide what we want our policies to be in this area. Our original framework, derived from EU law, must now keep up with fast-evolving technologies and consumer behaviours. Technological changes in the 21st century may have created new opportunities, but they have also left us exposed to new risks, such as AI, battery hazards and e-bike fires.
Our online marketplaces and the complex digital commerce that facilitates them have reduced barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises sharing their products across the UK and the world, but the internet is still a wild west in many ways, leaving small businesses and consumers exposed. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome aspects of this Bill. We fully understand and support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We welcome in principle the powers in the Bill to put new responsibilities on online marketplaces throughout the supply chain, and we support enhanced consumer protection for products that pose a safety risk.
The product regulations falling in scope of this Bill will have an impact on our country’s trade policy, and the Liberal Democrats are clear when it comes to trade: we believe the Government must pull the most powerful and readily available lever at their disposal to kickstart economic growth by urgently launching negotiations for a new UK-EU customs union. That would create jobs, boost our public finances and reverse much of the damage inflicted on our economy by the previous Conservative Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. I take this opportunity to urge the Government to move in that direction and to commit that, as part of these trade negotiations, they will use the provisions in the Bill to facilitate a new customs union, which could have such a transformative effect on our economy.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for engaging with the issues about product safety and consumer protection in the Bill, and he is making a serious speech in relation to them.
First, on the point of the customs union, which was skilfully woven into his speech, that would preclude us from reaching any arrangements with the United States, India, the Gulf states or other countries. For my money, if we wish to be part of something without a say in how it would affect our trade policy, that would be a very difficult position to take. I will come back to the references made by Conservative MPs, who often feel like they are fighting the old, last war. They cannot get past it—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. First, I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that he is meant to be making an intervention. Secondly, we are quite definitely debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, not a customs union. Perhaps the Secretary of State will conclude his remarks.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the number of references made to the EU in this Bill, the EU is explicitly referenced simply because UK product regulations are derived from a lot of EU regulations. We have to reference that when looking to the future, particularly when we recognise some of those European standards, but it is wrong to simply look at those references and try to make them out to be something they are not.
Clive Jones
Thank you for your intervention, Secretary of State. You are right—
Clive Jones
Sorry. The Secretary of State is right when he talks about us needing to keep up with EU regulations. We definitely need to do that.
Despite the potential in this Bill, unfortunately it contains very little actual policy. It relies far too heavily on secondary legislation, which limits opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny and provides little clarity on what the Government actually intend to do with the powers they are giving themselves. The Bill hurls us into a hokey-cokey trade policy in which, at Ministers’ political whims, we can stick ourselves into aligning with the EU just as easily as we can throw ourselves out of it all over again if another Government decided they wanted to do that. It will also hurt business confidence, because the underlying regulations of our country can be easily altered without the appropriate levels of scrutiny from Parliament.
Taking a step back from the issue of EU alignment, this principle can apply across any of the areas that this Bill seeks to regulate. It is developing opaque mechanisms on which the Government expect us to trust them to do better. However, Government Members must contend with the fact that they will not be there forever. All the potentially positive things they could do with this legislation could be reversed or made worse by a different Government.
It is at this point that I must recognise the excellent work of the Liberal Democrat peers. For example, a Lib Dem lord introduced an amendment that protected the use of the unique British pint measurement, ensuring that the Bill could not prevent or restrict its use for beer, cider, or milk in the iconic pint bottle. Liberal Democrat peers pressed the Government to introduce stronger protections against lithium-ion batteries, and a Liberal Democrat peer also ensured that the Government included an important amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how the Government expect to identify and assess product safety risks before legislation is laid. Put simply, this will ensure greater scrutiny of regulations that are designed to make products safe.
Despite those improvements, the Bill is still ultimately a skeleton framework that shifts legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive without the necessary level of scrutiny. Many great Ministers agree with me that skeleton Bills are the wrong way to deliver legislation. In fact, in 2023—a mere two years ago—one shadow Minister stated that such Bills were not
“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,
and that we should be minimising
“the use of delegated powers where possible”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 409.]
I agree with that then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State who has brought forward today’s Bill. I am sorry that he does not agree with himself any more.
I also note the assurances that the Government gave to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place that a process for editing statutory instruments will be brought forward. We will be pushing for details of that pre-legislative consultation as the Bill progresses through the Commons. Any Government will say that they are acting in our best interests, but all of the things that this Bill could do—such as enhance consumer safety, reduce trade barriers and build an economy fit for the future—could be undone at the stroke of a pen. That is a pen that Parliament should hold, not Ministers.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The use of hazardous chemical flame retardants in domestic furniture has been criticised by the Association of Master Upholsterers and Soft Furnishers and in a 2019 Environmental Audit Committee report, because those chemicals have been shown to cause more toxic smoke, increase the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide and increase the prevalence of health conditions, including developmental disorders, breathing difficulties and reproductive disorders. As this Bill would provide the Government with more powers to act on that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should outline how the Government plan to address the dangers associated with CFRs?
Clive Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Ministers will address her question—if they heard it. The Bill makes it possible for the Government to use those new powers, and that would be a good place for them to start.
The Minister in the other place stated that this Government are not looking to reduce consumer protections. However, what measures in this Bill make sure that parliamentary scrutiny cannot be bypassed to weaken those protections? The skeletal nature of the Bill also makes clear what is missing—the very heart of our changing economy is nowhere to be seen.
Clive Jones
Can I just carry on a bit? Thanks.
Online marketplaces are rapidly expanding in number and popularity, competing with high streets across the nation, but unfortunately, there is no level playing field on which those two competitors can battle it out for consumers’ cash. That is what the Bill should be addressing, because our high streets and our small businesses must contend with regulations that online marketplaces are not equally liable to. That is not a level playing field. For example, unsafe products are flooding online marketplaces. A study by Which? revealed that 90% of toys purchased from Amazon, eBay, AliExpress and Temu were illegal due to choking and strangulation hazards. Another study from the British Toy and Hobby Association found that 85% of toys from online marketplaces were unsafe, with 8% also illegal due to missing warnings. Do we want that situation to continue?
Sammy Wilson
I note that the hon. Member has described many of these toys as “illegal”. In other words, the law is there already. This Bill is therefore not necessary to deal with children choking on toys and all the other things he has outlined. The law is already there; the question is, do we actually implement the law?
Clive Jones
The law needs to be tightened up. We definitely need to be taking a lot more interest in the unsafe products that online companies are selling.
Do we want to allow unsafe toys to be sold to our precious children by some faceless online operation through an online market? I am sure the answer is no, but the Bill as it is written fails to address that. The problem is not just limited to toys, but extends to heaters, phone chargers and batteries. The Government have signalled an ambition to bring online marketplace liability in line with more traditional models of retail, but an ambition can be easily reversed by a different Government without parliamentary oversight. Without the measure being explicitly put into the Bill, consumers and the high street are not receiving the guarantees they deserve.
This is a serious issue for children and personal safety, and we therefore need explicit guarantees of minimum duties for online marketplaces in the Bill. What is the Minister’s view on whether a duty to notify consumers who have been sold unsafe or illegal products should be placed on online marketplaces? Such a duty could enhance consumers’ rights to seek a refund of the purchase price. Will a requirement to verify the identity and activities of sellers be established? If it is a yes to any of those questions, the Minister should do the right thing and amend the Bill so that those guarantees are enshrined in primary legislation.
I could go on. The Bill requires a tighter definition of an online marketplace to ensure that there are no loopholes for platforms to avoid appropriate regulations. That is especially the case for platforms that do not exist solely as an online marketplace, such as TikTok Shop and Facebook Marketplace.
Finally, the Bill does not make explicit reference to e-bikes, e-scooters or lithium-ion battery safety, despite safety being one of the explicit aims of the Bill. E-bike and e-scooter battery fires pose a uniquely high risk to consumers, with the London Fire Brigade estimating that it attends a fire incident caused by one of these devices once every two days. There need to be stronger regulations on these things. Can the Minister explain why they are not included in the Bill?
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents would be forgiven for thinking that the clock had turned back, so I will focus on the issues that they have asked me to raise, which are not political in the slightest, but relate to safety. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that while this is a small Bill, it is very important. It is of great interest to my constituents, especially the members of Torphichen community council in my constituency who asked me to speak in this debate. They back the Electrical Safety First campaign, and they spoke to me about the danger of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes and in everyday products. The lithium-ion battery safety campaign is calling for stronger measures, including improved enforcement efforts, particularly online; disposal guidance at the point of sale; and measures to ensure safer charging. I hope that the Ministers who are present will give strong consideration to those suggestions in due course.
Lithium-ion batteries are integral to many modern devices that most of us have in our homes, from e-scooters to laptops, but widespread use has exposed significant safety concerns, largely owing to the lack of oversight. Batteries have been linked to numerous fire incidents and pose serious risks of injury or worse. Thermal runaway is a dangerous phenomenon: battery cells overheat and catch fire, releasing toxic gases and often causing extensive damage. By their very nature, e-scooters are often left in town centres, walkways and communal areas in flats and hallways, putting other members of the public at risk in the event of thermal runaway. As we have heard, in London e-bike and e-scooter fires occur as often as once every two days. Worse still, I am aware of domestic incidents in my constituency, including one in which, sadly, a family lost their home and all their belongings as a result of an e-scooter fire.
The Bill introduces welcome steps to deal with those risks, creating a landscape to address the dangers associated with products that are so widely used. The mandates on safety standards for the storage, use and disposal of lithium-ion batteries will help to mitigate the dangers associated with thermal runaway. I also welcome the new powers to monitor compliance and enforce regulations effectively. It is critical that only safe and reliable products reach the market, and reach our homes. Such measures are essential to prevent incidents and protect people from serious harm, such as that which affected my constituents.
There is much in the Bill that has been long awaited at a local level, and I am glad that the Government are responding to people’s concerns in a timely and stringent manner. The danger posed by poorly maintained or unsafely stored lithium-ion batteries is too great to be ignored.
Graham Stuart
Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that the existing regulations on lithium-ion batteries are insufficient? There is a British standard, and there are environmental and disposal regulations. There is a swathe of regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries, but if there is a failure to enforce them, that should not give Ministers carte blanche to decide on a whim what products, in this area or any other, should be available for sale in the UK without any recourse to Parliament.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I do not think that we want to rerun the arguments relating to Brexit, which is what this debate has largely been about so far. The Bill has clearly been introduced to address gaps that have left consumers exposed to great harms.
The prominence of online marketplaces is an established trend in our society. We all know from the pandemic how important essential—and sometimes non-essential—online purchases can be to our daily lives. They have become commonplace, and that trend is only set to continue. By the end of the decade, online purchases will be worth £156 billion. Nevertheless, many products are poorly regulated, faulty and—too often—dangerous. Whether it is the carbon monoxide alarms that do not work that have been used to kit out a cheaply renovated student flat, the faulty chainsaw attachments used by a neighbour or the faulty e-scooter sitting in a back garden, these faulty products have come about because the pace of change online has been poorly matched by regulations. We are now in a situation where regulations in the online world do not match the protections in the real world. Quite simply, if a product is too dangerous or fails the standards for those sold in shops, it should not be available in online marketplaces. As a society, we need to be protected in our increasing reliance on and use of the digital world; otherwise, the lack of online protections will have yet more devastating real-life impacts.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I am about to conclude.
This Bill is a welcome step to alter the regulatory landscape. More importantly, it will ensure basic product safety and better oversight of products such as lithium batteries. The Bill will reduce the risks associated with thermal runaway and protect our communities from potential harm. As online marketplaces continue to expand, it is essential to extend these regulations to the digital realm to respond to the evolving challenges of modern technology and safeguard public safety.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I have deep concerns about this Orwellian Bill because of what it does not explicitly say and its ambiguity regarding EU dynamic realignment. The Henry VIII powers the Bill gives Ministers will have serious consequences for businesses, consumers and our ability to trade, but does so with little detail on how they intend to use such powers.
Let me first turn to regulatory alignment. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent much time taking the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 through as a Whip, and I believe passionately that that Act was vital to take back control, for parliamentary sovereignty and in freeing businesses to compete by shedding unnecessary EU regulations, directives and red tape. So I will say plainly that this Bill will lead to regulatory alignment with the EU through the back door. I invite the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this Bill and the powers it gives Ministers will not be used by this Government for dynamic alignment with EU regulations. I doubt that any such categoric reassurance is likely to be forthcoming, but I await with bated breath and a hopeful heart that it be so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Joy Morrissey
Let me make some progress, and then I will give way.
The Government have always claimed that they would not return us to the single market and the customs union, and many believed them. I was always a healthy sceptic, but I am willing to be proven wrong. However, my fear is that this Bill will lead to back-door EU regulatory alignment, and whether that is deliberate or unintentional matters not. We had our democratic instructions from the British people, and we must honour them.
I now want to talk about competition—
Joy Morrissey
Well, I am now on competition. Would the hon. Member like to make a comment about that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This is turning into a debate in itself. It is very clear that the Member does not want to take an intervention right now, Mr Snell, but she may do so later.
Gareth Snell
Persistence sometimes pays off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I genuinely want to pick up the point the hon. Lady is making about competition in relation to alignment. In the ceramics sector, the food contact materials regulations set by the European Union are essential to enabling the export of the products we create and make. They are product regulations for safety, but she seems to be suggesting that any regulatory alignment is a bad thing. Is that her party’s message about alignment for the purposes of export that I should take back to the thousands of workers in Stoke-on-Trent?
Joy Morrissey
With exports, we can apply any kind of regulation we want to maximise our market advantage from leaving the EU. We could apply a statutory framework for Japan, or any country we want, to ensure we can export our products. The point of leaving the EU was so that we could remain globally competitive, and so that we could choose to adopt any regulatory framework we wanted if that market enabled us to export our products, support our businesses and help to grow our economy. I would support that, but nothing of that is mentioned in the Bill. If it mentioned realignment with market values in relation to Japan, so we could export things to Japan or to other markets, I would be interested in looking at the Bill holistically, but not once is any country or trade grouping mentioned except the EU. That gives me pause, and it makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to achieve a backdoor realignment with EU regulatory frameworks without the scrutiny of Parliament.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady also accept that the Bill is not necessary to promote exports? If a company wants to export its products to Japan or Timbuktu, it will have to align with the regulations that exist in those countries anyway. It does not need a Government Bill, and—far worse—it does not need a Minister to have the power to make regulations without coming to this place.
Joy Morrissey
I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave it there, because that is an excellent point.
This is about free trade and expanding our global reach by making money, growing our economy and allowing everyone to benefit from a tax base that grows because our businesses can export freely. I am very supportive of that. If the Bill in any way addressed the concerns I have raised, I would be happy to support it, but it is vague and does not give us the insight we need into the kind of alignment that is intended. That vagueness presents a challenge that was mentioned repeatedly in the other place. In this House, we must address the Bill’s challenges with a similar rigour. It may look quite harmless on the outside, but under the surface it will deliver profound change and threaten our ability to scrutinise these regulatory changes. In the other place, the noble Lord Sandhurst described it as:
“a Henry VIII Bill par excellence”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC44.]
We would do well to heed those words.
Where is the policy framework under which Ministers will decide to use these powers? On parliamentary sovereignty or Ministers’ decision to use the powers, there is no such framework.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As a fellow member of the Procedure Committee, I do enjoy a good procedural debate, but I wonder whether she will get to the meat of the Bill at any point. Will we be talking about Brexit bogeymen, or will we be talking about consumer safety, representing those we are here to represent, looking after their interests and making them safer?
Joy Morrissey
The Bill is a legislative blank sheet of paper for Ministers to fill with whatever legislation they feel like. The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that the Bill
“signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers”.
I say to Members right across this House: heed those words. If we do not stay alert to legislation that looks so harmless yet confers such powers on Ministers, we are failing in our role as legislators.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am not aware of any other legislation that has received the same recommendation three times. That represents a substantial warning.
The Bill, either deliberately or unintentionally, will lead to realignment with the EU and once again leave our country beholden to others’ decisions on regulatory standards. It will hamper our businesses in this fast-changing world, making them less agile and less competitive and making us poorer as a nation. It gives Ministers too much power—a fact that in this House should always be pause for thought, no matter who governs. I urge the Government to think again.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I hope to offer a course correction from the Opposition’s attempts to fight many things today, not least the concept of geography and what is in the interests of British businesses. In this debate, we are watching the last gasps of the Brexit delusions that have fallen on hard contact with the paperwork reality. That is what this piece of legislation is about; it is about making it easier for British businesses who have been harmed by the previous Government’s approach to their basic needs. This is not about free trade. What came about as a result of Brexit was not free trade, but mountains and mountains of paperwork.
I want to focus on that in my speech, but I cannot let go of what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. She was, as she says, a Whip on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023—my goodness me, I welcome a sinner that repenteth. In that Act, the Government were going to rip up more than 4,000 pieces of legislation overnight without any parliamentary scrutiny, simply because they had the word “Europe” in them. That included things like airline regulations, because of course what we needed were our own separate regulations so that a plane would have to take a different course in mid-air. That was the Brexit benefit.
Under the previous Government’s watch, more than 2,000 statutory instruments were laid before the House as a direct result of retained EU law. I welcome opposition parties’ commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, but I simply say that some of us on that Bill Committee tried to offer arguments about the importance of parliamentary involvement in such decisions, and they fell on deaf ears. I will come on to that.
Now that Opposition Members have suddenly discovered that statutory instruments might not always be the best way to look at such things, I hope they will be able to focus on what really matters here, because British business needs us to do that. British business needs us to clear up the mess created by the previous Administration and their approach to Brexit. That is what this legislation does. It is common-sense politics.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady is making an interesting point. The key point with that carry-over of EU law is that all the regulations had already been debated and had already gone through Parliament. All we were doing was replacing like with like. With this Bill, the Government are introducing huge Henry VIII powers to create brand-new legislation, perhaps around production regulation, but on who knows what else? Who knows what impact it will have, and on which countries? That is the difference. We are removing parliamentary scrutiny, rather than just carrying over old EU laws into current UK law.
Ms Creasy
There are so many things to unpack there, not least the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition that our previous regulations as part of the European Union were perhaps not that bad. With rules on bicycle safety, for example, perhaps it was pretty sensible to say that if something was safe in the UK, our colleagues in Europe might also be looking at it and we could share the burden of working out good regulation. That is not what happened with the retained EU law Act or with divergence, and it does sound like he needs to look at divergence. Thankfully, I have some statistics for him—I know he will be delighted to hear them.
Before we move on, let me just say this. Opposition Members have not spoken for British business today, although I accept that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), did try, and I recognise his expertise in toy manufacturing. He will recognise that we are talking about thousands of British businesses that are affected by regulations. What rules will those businesses have to follow to be able to sell in a market that makes their business sustainable? Some 12% of businesses in this country will be affected by this legislation, not because there are new rules, but because if we start to diverge from existing regulations, they will face a choice. Do they continue to follow European legislation so that they can sell into a larger market, or do they try to follow UK legislation, EU legislation and maybe Japanese legislation as well, with all the paperwork that comes with that?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I shall survive. Given the time that she has spent in this House, I am surprised that, like some newer Members, she may have been taken in by the Government’s wording. The Bill gives Ministers such blanket powers. Sure, they can align more with EU regulation, as she desires; equally, another Government or Minister could go the opposite way and do all the damage she is talking about—needlessly differing from Europe purely out of ideology—and the House would have no say in it. Surely, the hon. Lady must be more like the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and share with her colleagues the need to restrict Ministers’ powers.
Ms Creasy
I tried in vain to make exactly such arguments to the right hon. Member when he was a Minister telling me that European legislation was not good enough for this country. [Interruption.] I now ask him to let me finish my speech, because I want common sense in this legislation, as I think Ministers do. We need to stand up to those who puff and spout about Europe as though somehow it is a bad thing to make it possible for British businesses to trade with our nearest neighbours post Brexit. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an argument about rejoining the European Union.
Ms Creasy
I will, if I may, continue with my speech, but I shall take an intervention a bit later.
Our colleagues in Northern Ireland know the practical consequences of divergence—the obsession with the concept that somehow we have always to be different, which is somehow believed to be sovereignty. They will know what the “not for EU labels” mean. They will know, too, the impact that that has had on them and their colleagues. Neil Johnston, director of the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about just that. He described how suppliers have to have separate print runs for labelling, and how the requirements in shops for posters and edge-of-shelf labelling are massively burdensome for small businesses. We end up with a sausage roll that we cannot take across the border between Castlederg and Castlefin simply because of the way that the previous Government undertook Brexit.
Sammy Wilson
I wonder whether the Member has read the schedule to the Bill. Agri-food products are not covered.
Ms Creasy
I hope the right hon. Member can understand that my point is about divergence—about what happens when we try to ask businesses to run two different regulatory regimes out of a mistaken ideology that somehow we cannot find a way forward. That is what this piece of legislation will do. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield wanted to tell us that British businesses were better off as a result of the “Brexit freedoms”. Well, the numbers and statistics tell us the exact opposite. I am talking about not just the fall in GDP or the fall in trade that is predicted, but the thousands of businesses—16,400 of them—which have given up exporting to the European Union because of the additional paperwork and the additional regulatory regime.
Jerome Mayhew
I am so pleased to have eventually got through to the hon. Lady. She heard the Minister at the Dispatch Box say that this was not about dynamic realignment. Am I right in understanding that her view of this legislation is that it is 100% about EU dynamic realignment?
Ms Creasy
The hon. Member is completely wrong. I hope that he will give me a chance to make my speech before getting too excited about the word Europe.
He should try to understand what we are talking about here, which is British businesses and the regulatory certainty that they need from their Governments. My goodness, if we think how a Tory hard Brexit has hit British businesses, we should also consider how it has hit small businesses, which simply could not afford to comply with multiple regulatory regimes. We do know that we live in uncertain times, and that the threat of tariffs will kill what little business our firms might have left.
As the OBR pointed out to us last week, if global trade disputes escalate to include 20 percentage point rises in tariffs between the USA and the rest of the world, it will reduce GDP by a peak of 1% and reduce our current surplus. In that environment, we owe it to British businesses to talk common sense and to talk about what they actually want, which is a reduction in the Brexit red tape that they have had to deal with. We have been here before—on the practical insanity that Brexit generates. There was the obsession with blue passports, which came at the expense of being able to trade and keep a business going.
We have also been here before with the previous Government, which is why all those Conservative Members who were here before 2024 need to hang their heads in shame at some of the arguments that they are making about this. The previous Government wanted us to have our own UK charter mark. They wanted British businesses to run two separate charter mark arrangements. Undertaking testing requirements for both the UKCA and the European CE to allow a business to be able to sell in both markets was costing businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds. The costs could go as high as £200,000 per product range. I am actually quoting from the previous Government’s own impact assessment of the legislation, and I am happy to send that document to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is chuntering from the Opposition Benches.
UK conformity assessment marking covered goods worth £109 billion. It is little wonder that after four years, and I believe the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham might have been on that very Committee when it happened, those obsessed with the Brexit freedoms were hit with cold, hard reality and had to climb down and say that British companies that had met European standards had also met the British charter mark. They had to roll over the charter mark, because if they had not, their own impact assessment would have shown that it cost British businesses up to £1.6 billion in the decade. That is the Brexit bonus of which Opposition Members are so proud—billions of extra cost to British businesses because they are trying to fill in two forms at once to sell the same item to different sets of consumers.
The Bill is about so much more than just kitemarking. We need to be clear that it does not mean that we have automatic access to the EU market. It means that British businesses can see what the regulatory landscape might look like ahead of them. That is very important in these uncertain times. It also prevents the UK becoming a dumping ground for goods that are no longer considered safe in the European Union. I certainly believe that my constituents need to be confident that we will not be flooded with cheap goods that are bad for them.
It also does not mean that we have to align automatically, and I hope that answers the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. I am not here arguing for automatic alignment. After all, there are examples of where we have taken a different approach. The vaping legislation was something that Conservative Members opposed, but it put us ahead of European product legislation. The Bill has protections for the British pint. The Lords wrote those in.
It is also clear that choosing not to participate does not mean that UK consumers are not affected. We saw that with mobile phone charging cables. Even though we are too small a market to influence Apple, the European Union acting together made Apple stop selling us multiple cables. As somebody who was carrying around multiple pieces of equipment, I am very grateful for that.
We may also want to look at examples where we might learn from our colleagues. Right now the European Union has been taking the lead on carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—basically what is in a synthetic football pitch. Our kids right now in the United Kingdom play on pitches that have dangerous chemicals in them, but our European colleagues’ kids are not playing on those. When we talk about alignment, sometimes we are talking about sharing good practice on how to make our kids safer—the consumer regulations product safety that we were talking about.
I suspect that is why the previous Government, in the end, with all their obsession with Brexit freedoms and with all the powers they had, did not diverge very much. Indeed, under their watch, there were only five cases of active diversion. There were 15 cases of passive divergence, where basically they did not update regulations. For all the huffing and puffing, when faced with the cold, hard reality of having different regulatory regimes for goods in this country from those of our next door neighbours, where we might also want to sell, the previous Government took the better approach; they did not look to make British businesses try to double up on their paperwork. Indeed, where we have diverged there are clearly problems being stored up. Anybody watching the court case about sandeels knows what is coming down the line.
This Government are not going to mess British business around in the way that the previous Government did with their huffing and puffing about whether previous Governments in other countries were friend or foe. We need to make trade work. British businesses need less paperwork. That means being clear about where we will diverge, where we will align, why that makes a difference and what that means for product standards.
I think we agree across the House that we want high standards. That is delivered not by being not European, or pro-European, but by looking at what the regulatory regimes are. That is why it matters that we have paused some of the current proposals of divergence—on a new recycling label regime, on the “not for EU” labelling, and on the new checks on agrifood imports. We are looking at what works for British businesses so that we can make it easier for them to trade. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate.
What we need to do in the Bill—I hope the Minister will be open to this—is be clear about the direction of travel and the proper, right way and point for Parliament to be part of that process. If we are going to diverge, we should be clear why that would be in the British interest and how we as a Parliament will have that conversation. Where we have information, we should update our constituents, who might have businesses with products that take 18 to 36 months to develop. They need to know the regulatory regime, for example of the toys they want to make, and which markets they can sell into. That is why it matters that we have parliamentary scrutiny.
I welcome sinners who repenteth about the value of that, but I do not want to see British business faced with the idea of us having to consult on absolutely everything. I do not have an erratic fear of the Europeans somehow holding us back if they help us ensure that our kids are not playing football on pitches that have carcinogenic chemicals on them. That is common-sense British politics, and that is what the Bill needs to deliver.
Regulatory uncertainty undermines economic growth. If economic growth is our primary ambition, we need to reduce the amount of times we ask British businesses to be part of consultations, because they need to have confidence about where regulation is going. That is why it matters that we say, “We are not going to start diverging for the sake of it, but only because we can see there is a national interest in it.”
I will finish on this point. It matters to so many of our growth ambitions that construction materials are also covered under the Bill. Construction costs are due to rise much further here than in the European Union. Many of us who want our hospitals rebuilt and house building to happen know that if we spend our time giving uncertainty to British businesses about which way the regulations will go, we will not get the investment that we want. The cold, hard reality of businesses’ decision making is that they do not want to invest on a risk. My question to the Minister is: how can we give British business certainty about the direction of travel and ensure that we have the right consultation and engagement process for Parliament so that, where there are points where we would diverge—like we did on vaping—we can do that, too? It is not an either/or. Frankly, we have to get over the idea that if something is European, it is somehow taking us back. Nine years after we voted to leave the European Union, and six years after the legislation to do that, what the EU is doing still affects our British businesses.
We have a choice in this House. We can continue to peddle fantasies—I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is no longer in his place; he seemed not even to know about the capitulation that his Government must have made in his eye over the charter mark—but we owe it to British businesses who are being hammered by Tory Brexit and facing economic uncertainty not to add to the pile of paperwork in their in-trays as the Opposition would. I hope that when the Minister sets out that direction of travel, he will be open to ideas about how we can secure that. British businesses may have stopped listening to Opposition Members, but they will listen to us if we get this right.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There are three fundamental points to be made about the Bill, and I will make them more briefly than the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), although I am delighted to follow her. First, there is a constitutional issue at the heart of the legislation about the power of this House and this Parliament, and the power of the Executive.
The Bill creates a permissive power for the Executive to introduce by regulation, through statutory instrument, all kinds of measures. Those who have been in the House for a long time, and perhaps those of us who have been in the House for a rather shorter time, will know what that means in practice: a brief debate in a room upstairs that will take a few minutes or perhaps a little longer. It will be thinly populated and the measure will be given scant scrutiny. The Executive should be held to account on the Floor of the House or by a Committee designed for the purpose.
That brings me to my second point about the Bill. We once had a European Scrutiny Committee whose task was to look closely at all kinds of things that emanated from the European Union. The hon. Lady who spoke immediately before me described those of us in the House who are sceptical about the European Union as not being rational; she said these were irrational fears about the European Union. Were that to be true, she would probably have a point, but actually our fears are entirely rational. We know what emanated from the European Union during our membership, and it was endless bureaucracy. I acknowledge that it was often gold-plated here, but none the less it was every kind of rule and regulation, some of which were entirely superfluous to our needs because they were introduced on a pan-European basis. I learned long ago that power is best exercised when it is exercised closest to its effect. When decisions are made, they need to be sensitive to the difference they make to those affected by them. One of the reasons I was a passionate supporter of Brexit is that I want power to return to the place where it has its effect. I fear, therefore, entirely rationally, that if the default position as a result of the Bill is that we end up with European regulation, it will not be sensitive to its effect but instead will be decided upon far from where the businesses that it affects are located.
So, given the second issue is about how the measure is scrutinised, I invite the Government to reinvent some kind of European Scrutiny Committee or similar. Perhaps we can call it a regulatory scrutiny Committee; perhaps it may be a body that allows the full consideration of each of the measures that the Government introduce under this umbrella Bill to ensure the House was happy with them and felt they were appropriate and had been tailored in the right way. That might be an amendment that the Government will accept, given that the Secretary of State said he was open-minded about improving the legislation during its passage.
The third problem that this Bill has at its heart is the assumption about harmonisation. That term is often used and one should always be terribly fearful when it is, because it’s usually not about creating harmony but about accepting control from elsewhere. I worry that that process will snuff out some of the measures that might more usefully be adopted by Government and impose on businesses and others blunt measures that are insensitive to the particularities that prevail in our country. I do not say that is with intent, as it seems to me that the Secretary of State made clear it was not his intention, but I just fear that it will.
The regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes that we already had seem to imply that. They say, and the Secretary of State repeated this in his opening remarks, that there are all kinds of changes—new rules, new regulations and new restrictions—happening at a pace that require the attention of Government, and that pace is so great that it is hard for the Government to keep up. My fear is, therefore, that they will adopt very broad measures rather than ones that are sufficiently tailored and sufficiently refined to meet domestic needs.
With that constitutional problem of the balance between the Executive and Parliament; with that lack of scrutiny and oversight that comes from not having a body that can look at these things on a one-by-one basis; and with that tendency to produce broad-brush measures emanating from the European Union, as implied both in the Bill and in supporting documents, I have grave doubts about this legislation.
It is true that we should regulate where necessary, of course; it is right in the public interest that we do so. However, we must always do so with care, because when that regulation becomes burdensome, when it frustrates innovation and when it tempers the ability to produce goods that meet popular demand, rather than becoming helpful to either customers or those that supply them, it inhibits the very things that support those businesses and aid those customers. I simply invite the Minister when he sums up to re-emphasise that the Government believe, as I do, in light-touch regulation and in regulation that only applies when there has been appropriate discussion with those affected by it, that there will be a proper dialogue between business and business representatives before new measures are introduced, and that all that is introduced will have the character that I have set out: tailored, specific and in the British interest.
Our role in this place is to defend the national interest. I know that a kind of heady internationalism permeates particular parts of this Chamber—I look to my left towards the Liberal Democrats—but I have always thought that it was more important to stand up for the British people, to represent my constituents to the best of my ability and to be, as I described earlier, sensitive to the particularities of the locale that I represent and the country that I love. Is that too much to ask of Members of this House?
So, I do not regard my fears about this Bill as irrational, contrary to the hon. Member for Walthamstow’s assertion; they are deeply rooted in a rational fear of the worst this Bill could bring.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Good regulation is basically the immune system of our nation, and it is often unseen. When regulation is working well and having the desired effect, we rarely see it happening because it is keeping us safe and protecting us from those harms that we outsource to the Government to keep watch over for us. It is taking the necessary steps and measures to make sure that we are safe, the things we buy are safe, the interactions we have in our communities are safe and our children are safe. That regulation is a protection, essentially, and this Bill gives the scope and the agility for the Government—any Government—to respond quickly and in a timely manner to new and emerging potential threats that regulation is required to protect us from.
I worry when Governments of any colour—including, unfortunately, that of my own party of late—seek to suggest that regulation is inherently a bad thing, an inhibitor of growth or the heavy hand of the state stopping the illustrious bounds of enterprise, because it often is not. Often it is about a level playing field. It is about creating the circumstances where competitors in Stoke-on-Trent have as much opportunity to compete with their competitors around the country or around the world in a way that we understand to be fair, balanced and proportionate. To me, this Bill sets us on a course where we are able to do that.
There are some areas where product regulation and the safety that comes with it are lacking. If the House will indulge me, I would like once again to talk about ceramics and the ceramic industry because I believe that the product regulatory framework and the existing protections for ceramics—in terms of the quality of goods that are purchased and also the protection of the level playing field—could benefit hugely from actions that the Government could take through the powers in the Bill.
We have discussed online drop-shipping platforms many times in this House. These are websites that bulk buy things and sell them into the UK, often at a fraction of the price that people could buy them for in this country, and often faking and forging the identities and brands of British companies, without any consideration for what people are actually buying. I was shown a great example by a company in Staffordshire, Dunoon ceramics, which makes a very particular style of ceramic mug. The mugs cost about £28 to make and they retail at about £35, sometimes up to £50.
An online drop-shipping website was selling a fake version—with the same artwork and the same “Made in the United Kingdom” sticker and backstamp on the base—into the UK for about £10. We have no idea whether that product was meeting the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012 that it is required in this country to meet in order to be considered safe. We had no idea of the levels of lead or cadmium in the paint, no idea what the glaze was made of, no idea where the clay had come from and no idea of the conditions under which it was made, but it was sold into the UK thousands at a time, undercutting the British company. For clarity, I have no idea whether the product was defective, but it could have been, thereby putting people at risk.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I collect ceramics, by the way, so I am extremely interested in them. He is right that we should support and, indeed, revere the British ceramic industry, but many laws already prevent the kind of counterfeiting he describes and other laws prevent illegal substances from being used and sold in the manufacture of goods. There is a lot of existing statute that protects consumers from the kind of practices he describes.
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there are existing protections for some of the things I have mentioned that, if enforced properly, could take those products off the market, but the enforcement of many of our regulatory frameworks in this country is quite weak. Funding for most enforcement agencies across this country was—not to make a party political point—reduced under the last Government. I hope this Government will reconsider that because a regulation is only ever as good as the enforcement regime sat behind it.
Sammy Wilson
Would the hon. Member accept that if Ministers got up at 9 o’clock in the morning and worked until 9 o’clock at night introducing regulations on the basis of this Bill every day, but there was no enforcement or the enforcement was as weak as he says it is on pottery, we would be no better off?
Gareth Snell
I do not think anybody would disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment that if there is no enforcement of regulation, there is no benefit, but we are not saying in the Bill that there should be less enforcement. The Bill produces a framework in which the Government can take action to respond to create the good regulation necessary. I will freely admit that what has to come with that are the enforcement arrangements to ensure those new regulations are enforced properly, penalties to deter people seeking to circumvent the regulations, and the proper resourcing of enforcement agencies so they are equipped to take action against those people and companies seeking to circumvent the laws. Without that, I fully accept that regulation for the sake of regulation is no good any more than regulation being cut or diverged for the sake of divergence and reduction is any good. It comes down to enforcement.
To go back to the comments of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), there is one area in this Bill where Government action could bring in a new product protection regulation that would have a huge impact on the ceramic industry. That is around the backstamp on the bottom of a piece of ceramic or pottery. As an avid collector, he will be aware of the importance of those backstamps. In this country, if we turn over any plate, cup or anything made from good-quality British ceramics, we will normally find the words “Made in England” and the pottery name underneath it. Consumers then know they are buying a premium piece of British-manufactured ceramics that has been made to a suitable product standard that we accept in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the best in the world. It is perfectly plausible, as has been done with some of the fakery, to replicate that phrase when it is not true.
The other challenge we have is companies that import things into the United Kingdom augmenting the wording of that particular backstamp to suggest it has been made in the UK when it has not. It may have been bisque-fired overseas, imported and then decorated and glazed in the UK, but it will normally have a company name, the word “England” and the date upon which that historic brand was established. It gives consumers the idea that they are buying a piece of British-made ceramics that would therefore be protected by the normal product regulations when in fact it is not.
There is the potential for the Minister to use the new powers in the Bill to produce new regulation that says anything produced in the UK that is considered to be ceramic has to have a proper mark on the base that demonstrates where it was made and where it has come from and to demonstrate that it was made in the UK. If a company is not making it in the UK, they become prohibited from putting the words “England” or “Made in the UK” on it.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time—it is very generous of him. I think that we should jointly sponsor a Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman and I, not you and I, although we would love for you to be involved. He and I could jointly sponsor a “Made in Britain” Bill that would do exactly what he describes. I am not sure that this piece of legislation is necessary to do that, for we have that power in this House as it stands. Let us get little crowns printed on eggs again, let us have “Made in Britain” printed on everything, and let us go back to “Foreign made”, which was formerly widely used. I would love to see “Foreign made” stamped on imported goods—then people would not buy them!
Gareth Snell
I am very sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I and a number of my colleagues have already presented the Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill. He is more than welcome to support it should it ever be given its Second Reading. However, because of the nature of this place and the way private Members’ Bills work, I am realistic about the fact that if we are to see that regulatory protection for British ceramics, it will have to come through a different mechanism. The mechanism in this Bill, which allows the Government to make those protective arrangements through secondary legislation, could increase the protection of British ceramics.
My final point is about a level playing field for exports. I take the point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made, after I had intervened on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), about our regulatory regime and where we want to export. The bulk of the ceramics made in my constituency are exported to the EU. We could diverge from the EU food contact materials regulations and have a secondary system in this country, but all that would do is create a separate set of regulatory regimes for small companies with small margins, requiring them to make products twice. We simply could not stand that burden. Before I get attacked for being one of those horrible remainers, I urge Members to check my voting record during the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. There are times when sticking with what we know—the European regulations—absolutely makes sense. We should control that, but it makes sense to align ourselves where we should.
I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will, as one of his first actions with his new powers, consider my points about ceramics. If he does not, perhaps he would like to support my Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If colleagues speak for too long, others will be disappointed, so, unofficially, let us try to keep our speeches to under 10 minutes.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Anyone listening to the debate would think that it is all about saving children from choking on toys, buildings not burning down because of defective batteries in bicycles, saving lives, safe products, and even the internal market and safeguarding the Northern Ireland economy, but it is not about any of that. It is nice to dress it up like that, and I suppose using that kind of language is helpful to make the Bill relevant to constituents, but the Bill is nothing to do with that.
Time and again Members have spoken about those kinds of issues—batteries catching fire, defective toys and so on—but they can and have been dealt with already in law. Indeed, we have even heard Members talking about illegal products being sold, so we do not need some Minister to change the law; we need someone to ensure that the laws in place are enforced. We already have a mechanism to make things illegal, so if there are gaps in the law, we can just use that mechanism.
Let us not obscure what the debate is all about. It is not about gaps and the need to safeguard people. It is all about the Bill’s agenda, which is to give Ministers additional powers. The public see a Government with a majority of over 200 who have been able to drive through legislation that has frustrated and angered them, whether it is taking money off pensioners for winter fuel or the legislation that was driven through last week to meet the net zero agenda, which failed to prevent us from buying solar products from China that are made by slave labour. I could go through all the other things that have made people angry, but a Government with a majority of over 200 now want to take on additional powers to allow a Minister to avoid having to come to this House to ensure product safety.
I have no doubt that the real reason Ministers wish to retain that power is that the Government have already set their mind on resetting our relations with Europe. They know it is unpopular with many of their supporters. They do not want to have constant scrutiny in this House on a weekly or monthly basis of new regulations that align us with Europe, so it is far better to give Ministers the power to do that quietly, without consultation or a vote in this House. As a number of Members have said, the Bill gives Ministers the power to do that.
Indeed, some of the Government’s own supporters in the House of Lords made the point that the Bill contains the potential for dynamic alignment. The Government have been ambiguous about whether the powers will be used to do that, but I am fairly sure that is the main reason. There is little enough opportunity for this House to look at and challenge legislation, but I believe it is wrong for a Bill to allow Ministers, under the cover of darkness, to take us back into arrangements that we have escaped from.
Members have mentioned Northern Ireland. We know the impact of the EU general product safety regulations already, because they apply in Northern Ireland. Businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom that want to sell their products in Northern Ireland will have to have agents in Northern Ireland. The EU makes these laws to try to tie other countries and companies to its regulations. I suspect the excuse the Government will use for pursuing dynamic alignment will be, “We’re doing it for the good of businesses in GB as well as Northern Ireland, because if we’re aligned to EU rules, we escape some of the restrictions on trade that the EU has imposed.” But why did we leave the EU in the first place, and why did many businesses support leaving the EU? First, the EU introduced costly regulations that did not even need to apply to many businesses because they never traded with the EU, but they still had to adjust their products to meet the regulations, which incurred costs.
Sir John Hayes
I am listening with intent to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. It may be that the Government are more innocent than he suggests and that there is not this hidden agenda he is describing, but in the words of a Northern Irishman, C. S. Lewis,
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
Even if there is not a hidden agenda, in the end, in the name of the victims—the customers—this will end up being regulatory, bureaucratic and costly.
Sammy Wilson
The potential is there, and it has been put in the Bill. I suspect that clause 2(7) has been included in the Bill to give that opportunity, if not now, then at some future time.
The other reason why businesses have opposed the implementation of EU regulations and the other danger of dynamic alignment is that many of the laws and regulations made in Europe that we may be aligning ourselves with only get there in the first place because powerful lobby groups lobby the European Commission to get regulations imposed. Those regulations may well suit one particular industry, or even powerful firms within that industry, but they do not necessarily benefit all of business. Some have said of the Bill, “Oh, this will give certainty to business,” but it may well give businesses additional costs.
Given what has happened in Northern Ireland and the way that our market with the rest of the UK has been disrupted, some may think that I would welcome the measures, but I do not welcome them for two reasons. First, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), many of the restrictions are on goods that are not even included in the Bill, as the schedule excludes them. Secondly, even if this problem is solved, it does not deal with the issue. We know that because Northern Ireland is subject to the EU single market regulations—300 areas of law, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) keeps reminding us on an almost weekly basis. The issue is that we have allowed the United Kingdom to be divided by the deal that was done with Europe. When the previous Government was in power, I warned that this would happen and that Northern Ireland would be the foot in the door. I believe that that will be used as one of the arguments for this legislation.
The DUP will oppose the legislation because we believe it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom and does not address the problems that are faced in Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I thought it was remiss that the speech by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) did not have a literary person in it, but he managed to get C. S. Lewis into his intervention.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State said earlier, I believe I am the first metrologist to be elected to this House in history, so it gives me great pleasure to rise to debate the Bill. I took the liberty of checking Hansard and until the Secretary of State used the word earlier, I was the only Member to have ever used the word “metrologist” in the House of Commons. I am proud to be here today and prouder still that the Labour Government have brought forward a Bill featuring metrology in the first year of our new Government.
Most of the debate has focused on the product regulation in the Bill, but given my background I will focus on the metrology. Prior to my election to this place, I was at the University of Nottingham, where I was active in research in metrology for advanced manufacturing, beginning with my PhD, continuing through several more years as a research fellow, and latterly as a senior research fellow. However, like most people I have known in my life, when I began my PhD, I had absolutely no idea what metrology was. Indeed, I am sure several colleagues in the Chamber did not know what it was before today, and I fear some still do not, so I would like to provide an explanation of the nature of my science, and explain why, contrary to popular assumption, it has nothing to do with clouds. [Interruption.] Please forgive my terrible pun.
The international standard, “Vocabulaire international de métrologie”, formally defines metrology as
“the science of measurement and its application”,
noting that
“metrology includes all theoretical and practical aspects of measurement, whatever the measurement uncertainty and field of application”.
It is not the
“branch of science concerned with the processes and phenomena of the atmosphere, especially as a means of forecasting the weather”,
which is, of course, meteorology—something I have explained almost every day of my professional career.
Metrology broadly encompasses the various fields of research that seek to develop the science and technology of measurement, be that measurement of any of the seven base quantities from the système international d’unités—the SI—or any of the units derived from those base quantities. The seven base quantities are, of course, length, mass, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of substance and luminous intensity.
The great physicist Lord Kelvin once expressed:
“To measure is to know”.
He also said:
“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”
Those sentiments are rarely more applicable than in the advanced manufacturing industry, where we are interested both in ensuring that a manufactured component meets the dimensional specification laid out by its designer and in constantly improving on existing products.
Metrology is a science that fundamentally underpins all other science. Without tools that allow us to measure and know, we cannot gain any understanding of the world around us, nor can we improve on it. In the fundamental scientific pursuit of understanding our universe, we are most often concerned with the metre, the first of the SI base units. The metre is defined formally by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in a vacuum, C, to be 299,792,458 when expressed in the unit of metres per second and where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency. In fact, that definition changed very recently—it came into force in 2018. The metre is more simply described by its older definition, which is simply the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in a time interval, in seconds, of one divided by the speed of light. In my opinion, the metre is one of the most beautiful creations in science: it is defined by light itself, and it is a creation that allows us in turn to create everything in our world.
At the start of this debate, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked the House when weights and measures became metrology. The answer to that question is: several thousand years before the common era. Behind every great scientific advancement in history, there has been a metrologist. Behind the pyramids, there was the first standardised unit of measurement—the royal cubit, defined as the length of the pharaoh’s forearm as measured from the tip of his forefinger to the base of his elbow. The cubit was a technology so advanced that it allowed the ancient Egyptians to position the building blocks of the pyramids with an accuracy almost equal to modern methods. Thousands of years later, there remains speculation on whether they were in fact built by aliens, because of how incredible an achievement that was. They were, of course, built not by aliens, but by metrologists.
Graham Stringer
At the start of this debate, as a fellow scientist, I wondered what the difference was between mensuration and metrology. When I was an undergraduate, we did not use the word “metrology”—it seems to be a new word. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten the Chamber.
Adam Thompson
Certainly. It is not a new word as far as I am concerned; I believe it was brought into common parlance in the Victorian era.
I will move on to some more examples. There is the James Webb space telescope—something more modern than the pyramids. It takes images of our universe more than 13 billion light years away that are deeper, more brilliant and more beautiful than anything we have ever seen. Behind that, there is the construction of a 6.5-metre mirror, flat to within just a few tenths of billionths of a metre from its highest top to its smallest valley. If we were to expand the size of the 6.5-metre mirror to the size of the Earth, the distance from the highest mountain to the deepest valley would be of the order of the height of my hip.
Behind the discovery of gravitational waves, there is a series of interferometers, kilometres in size, which can detect signals from noise at levels considered unachievable throughout human history until the past 20 years or so and which are capable of listening to the collision of black holes across spacetime.
Sir John Hayes
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a wonderful contribution to our affairs, which is indicative of the beauty of science, about which we hear too little. Before he rushes—hurtles, one might say—into the future, can he say a word about the peculiarly British measurements that informed my childhood? I mean things such as pecks, perches, rods and bushels, for each of those was rooted in the way that he described.
Adam Thompson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am happy to explain. Those particular forms of measurement are not in common use any more, but of course many right hon. and hon. Members of this House will have grown up with them. Broadly, the ones that are still in use are defined in the modern parlance, but it is important to remember that the modern metric system accounts for all of those heritage measurements. The common inch, for example, is formally defined as 25.4 mm, and while I apologise to Members across the House, it is important for me to let them know that the pint is formally defined as 568 ml. Those heritage measurements and, indeed, the entire imperial system are now referenced on to the metric system; defined very simply, the imperial system is the metric system. There is no reason why we should not use those historical measurements—where they are useful, they are perfectly valid—but they are formally defined with reference to the modern metric system. I will talk more about this shortly.
Metrology lies at the heart of everything we know, from telescopes to speed cameras and from knee replacements to jet engines. Every single thing made by human hand was designed first, constructed second and then checked by a metrologist to ensure it met its specifications—if we cannot know it, we cannot improve it. However, ensuring that parts meet their specifications is not simple, as each measurement, dimensional or otherwise, has an associated measurement uncertainty. That is a non-negative parameter characterising the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to the thing being measured, based on the information used. Estimation of measurement uncertainty is a complex procedure—one that formed much of my career prior to coming to this place—and is usually performed in line with the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement”.
Uncertainty estimation is generally performed by making measurements that are traceable to the definition of the SI metre—when we are concerned with the metre. Again, the “Vocabulaire international de métrologie” defines traceability as a property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through a documented, unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the overall measurement uncertainty. Traceable measurements allow for the successful estimation of uncertainty and are generally a base requirement for the verification of manufactured goods. Traceability is considered by the international community to be the only means by which evidence can be provided towards a given product fulfilling the requirements set out by its designer.
To provide an example, let us consider a length measurement made between two faces of a manufactured part, such as a Rubik’s cube. Imagine that I am holding a Rubik’s cube—I could not possibly have brought a prop, Madam Deputy Speaker. The length between two faces could be measured by a calliper. That calliper would be calibrated using a measurement artifact, most commonly a metal cuboid called a gauge block. That gauge block would in turn be calibrated by a more accurate instrument, which itself is calibrated using a more accurate gauge block. That more accurate gauge block would then be calibrated with reference to an optical interferometer using a laser source. That laser source is finally calibrated against the iodine-stabilised laser that is used to realise the definition of the metre, so traceability is established from the shop floor measurement all the way up to the definition of the metre by an unbroken chain of calibrations.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It feels impertinent to intervene, because my hon. Friend is giving a hugely passionate speech about a subject he clearly knows so much about, but how can he can help the next generation of metrologists to be as inspired about this topic as he clearly is?
Adam Thompson
That is very kind, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention. If he wishes, I have a 97-slide lecture that I would be more than happy to deliver afterwards.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Nobody wishes for the 97 slides, Mr Thompson.
Adam Thompson
Do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is not one for today. I am nearly finished.
Each stage of the traceability chain has some discernible uncertainty, which generally increases as we move down that chain and instrument accuracy decreases. Estimation of uncertainty at each link in the chain is essential; it is impossible to have a traceable measurement without the inclusion of an uncertainty with that measurement. When applied in manufacturing, traceability allows us to create anything we can imagine within the confines of our chosen manufacturing process. It is the cornerstone of our modern manufacturing industry.
Through this Bill, the Government seek to update metrology regulations and the means by which those regulations are enforced. We have heard at great length different opinions about that process, but the Government are today ensuring conformity with SI, ensuring uniformity in the measurement, sale, monitoring and quantity of goods. Further, they are ensuring that the Secretary of State and other appropriate bodies have the powers they require to inspect and enforce that conformity. The Bill will ensure that UK law is updated to recognise new or updated international regulations and keep us at the cutting edge of science and regulation.
Members said earlier in the debate how the UK was at the forefront of regulation. I spent many years on standards committees working through these things. Every standards committee I ever worked on fed into the British standard, which fed into the European standard and the international standard. Those are the frameworks we are updating today to ensure that we remain at the forefront. It will mean cost savings for business and it will promote regulatory stability.
Finally, the provisions laid out in this Bill continue the work begun by the ancient Egyptians—the work that allowed us to build everything from the great pyramids to the phones in our pockets, the paper that we hold in our hands and indeed the very floor on which we stand today. Our work today will ensure that the bulbs that light this room are of an appropriate brightness, that the air that we breathe and that surrounds us is of an appropriate temperature, and that we can finally get a fairly measured full beverage of exactly 568 ml in the pub. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I do not think I can; I thought that was an absolutely brilliant speech. I feel like a party-pooper, because I am going to drag the debate back to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and I can only apologise. I was going to assert boldly that I was the only Member of this House who had sat on a standards committee and drafted European regulations, but I stand corrected. There are now two of us.
At first glance, the Bill looks tiny. There are just four clauses on product regulations and four substantive clauses on metrology. There is a reason why it is so tiny: it does not actually say anything. There is no description of the changes anticipated by this legislation. There are no examples of what needs to be addressed. There is no indication of the direction behind any future decisions—nothing. Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, have referred to e-bikes and e-scooters, electrical safety, defective toys and lithium-ion batteries, to name just a few, but not a single one of those things is in the Bill. They could be. This could be a regulation Bill trying to fix the problems that have been identified, but none of that is there.
Worse than that, there is no explanation for the silence. The Bill simply makes a request of this House—of us, as parliamentarians—by saying, “Please give me, the Minister, the power to change primary legislation through regulations, including the power to create new and novel criminal offences.” This is the very definition of a skeleton Bill, where almost all the substance is left to regulations. That is contrary to an established convention in this House and the other place that the principal aspects of policy should be in a Bill, and only its detailed implementation left to delegated legislation. That is an established principle of our legislature. If we wish to depart from that, there needs to be a very good reason.
In exceptional circumstances, there are good reasons, but are there exceptional circumstances here? The issue was picked up immediately in what proved to be a hostile reception in the other place on Second Reading on 8 October last year. That was followed by a review on 15 October by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is not some right-wing conspiracy theory group. This is not “Brexit or die”; it is chaired by Labour. It is chaired by Baroness Ramsey, and it is a cross-party Committee. By the way, in another role, she is the senior adviser to the Labour party on standards and ethics, yet her report has been entirely ignored by this Government, because it was damning in its conclusions. It said that Government guidance was that skeleton legislation should be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, but that test was “failed” by this draft legislation. As a result, that cross-party Committee, chaired by Labour, made the recommendation that clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 all be removed. Those are the substantive clauses right through the Bill, on both sides. That is a stinging indictment of this category of draft legislation.
However, the Committee members were so concerned that they did not leave it at that. The following day, they took the exceptional step of summoning the Minister and his officials to give oral evidence. That is very rare, and it was the first time for three years that it had happened. The Committee members were clearly unimpressed by the answers—the attempted explanations —that they were given, because in a subsequent report, on 28 October, they reported that the Minister and his officials had
“failed to provide a convincing justification”.
As a result of that second damning indictment of the Government’s approach, there was some movement: the removal of some Henry VIII powers, and the addition of a duty to consult, at least in the first instance. However, other Henry VIII powers remain, and the duty to consult refers only to the first instance, not to any secondary attempts.
The Committee then produced a third report, on the Bill in its current form. It said that
“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the democratically appointed legislature to the Executive”,
and also that
“the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”.
Actually, I think the Government did understand what they were doing, because the Bill gives Ministers the power to make politically contentious decisions about the degree to which domestic law on product regulation and, indeed, on metrology should be aligned with EU laws. That is the real reason behind the Bill: the fear of EU alignment by the back door.
Sir John Hayes
My experience in this place—I am mindful of what my hon. Friend has said already—is that there are two types of Bill to beware of. The first is the Bill whose provisions are so permissive, so broad, lacking the tailored approach that I described earlier, as to allow law to be applied in a way that is not expected by those who debate it as it passes through the House. The second is the Bill that makes specific provision for delegated legislation—for subsequent action by the Government. Those two types of legislation are legislation to beware of, and I say that to Members on both sides of the House, having seen Governments of all kinds introduce such Bills which became, in the end, bad laws.
Jerome Mayhew
Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that comes to the nub of what I want to say. Yes, inevitably we are party politicians. We have the official Opposition, we have the Government, and we have those who sit on the left-hand side of the official Opposition. Above that, however, we are parliamentarians, and some of us are quite new. I may look old, and indeed I am, but I was first elected in 2019, and an awful lot of Members in the Chamber who may be voting tonight are even less experienced than me. It takes a while to begin to understand the difference between the role of the legislature and the role of the Executive, and my profound concern is that we are at risk of handing very significant powers from ourselves, the legislature, to the Executive.
Michael Wheeler
Having heard these comments several times, I wonder whether the hon. Member will accept that wisdom is not necessarily proportional to the amount of time spent in the Chamber.
Jerome Mayhew
The conventions of the House, and the conventions of the legislature, cannot be brushed aside by a flip comment like that. There are reasons why we have conventions. There is a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature, and the power to create legislation lies with us. There are grounds, sometimes, on which we can give it to Ministers, but there must be really sensible reasons for that to be done, and there simply are not in this instance.
Graham Stringer
I have been following the hon. Member’s arguments closely. It is certainly the case that, with or without wisdom, the House is capable of making poor decisions. I have voted for measures and against them on occasion, and the House has made poor decisions. However, it is much more likely that the House will get it right, rather than a delegated legislation Committee dealing with a statutory instrument where a Minister comes along and reads out a brief that she or he often does not understand, as is revealed under questioning—if, indeed, questioning takes place. The argument for the Bill is really to do with speed and capacity. We do not meet to vote on Thursdays, but we often do on Mondays. There is plenty of time for the House to do this.
Jerome Mayhew
I entirely agree. I did an analysis, and 48.3% of sitting days since the general election have been on one-line Whips, so there are no grounds for the Government to assert that they do not have time to put forward fresh legislation. It simply is not the case, and they do not have a legislative agenda that they are progressing with any urgency. There is plenty of room, and if we need to regulate, we can do it.
We have a big decision to take as parliamentarians. We are being asked by the Government to nod through a blank cheque—a blank cheque that is in breach of our parliamentary conventions. It is against the express advice of the cross-party Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not once, not twice, but three times. I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that any parliamentarian worthy of the name will vote against this Bill.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As has been said, on the face of it this is a short Bill, but when we look beneath the surface, it is even more exciting than the bare title of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill suggests. Most of us go through our days without giving much thought to the measurement of the units that govern our everyday lives—I confess that, until very recently, I was one of them—but so many of our scientific and medical advances have succeeded or failed on the most precise margins, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) so brilliantly set out. It was a real privilege to be in the Chamber to listen to his speech.
In the city of Birmingham, best known throughout much of its history as the workshop of the world, many millions of hours must have been sweated out to meet the finest of measurements and tolerances. I suspect my hon. Friend is capable of accurately estimating just how many hours that would have taken. However, I note in passing that one of just two remaining proof houses, which fell under the scope of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 and succeeding Acts—they attracted a lot of attention in the other place—is in Digbeth in the city of Birmingham.
At the start of my hon. Friend’s speech, he raised the question of when exactly the word “metrology” entered common parlance. I do not know what that date was, but I note that when the National Physical Laboratory was created in 1900, it was established with a metrology division. One of the early guiding forces, Mr J. E. Sears, later found a second career as a scales manufacturer, again in the good city of Birmingham. Today, when pharmaceutical manufacturing jobs are starting to return to my constituency, 20 years on from the collapse of MG Rover, I know some of the exacting standards that those manufacturers must meet.
We need only look at the number of Weights and Measures Acts passed by this House down the years to understand the importance of these questions for our role as legislators. I fear that I am about to commit an unwise act by referencing Magna Carta in this place, as that text has been the subject of one or two interesting emails that I suspect a number of hon. Members have also received, but it is telling that it stipulated:
“There is to be a single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and a single measure for Corn… And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.”
In the other place, and it is fair to say in this place as well, the arguments over the Bill have come down to a simple point: are delegated powers and statutory instruments the right processes for adapting to a rapidly changing landscape for product safety and international measurement standards? It is worth remembering two things. First, the theory that we could make sufficient updates through primary legislation can be tested against the history of legislation in this place. For example, some of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 have been overtaken by events, and it has proved hard in practice to bring forward the necessary changes to that legislation.
Secondly, as has been said, this work was initiated by the last Government, who at the time made the case for delegated powers persuasively. As the 2021 response to the 2019 call for evidence stated:
“Over time, the limited powers we retained in domestic legislation became less effective. Rather than update these, the UK relied on powers in the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 to introduce new harmonised legislation to deal with product safety and metrology.”
Those powers have now expired. Governments of all colours must deal with
“A complex, forever changing landscape”
and current legislation does
“not allow for many of the changes necessary to keep pace with technological advances and modern hazards.”
A good example of the ever-changing metrological field can be drawn from the 2019 changes to the international system of quantities, which altered in subtle ways the definition of the kilogram, the amp, the kelvin and the mole, with implications across a very wide range of regulations. I think it is sensible to update those definitions swiftly by regulations. We have heard examples of some of the unsafe products that are on sale at the moment. It is worth noting that the Bill is not simply about definitions, but enforcement. Clause 3 will enable some of those stretched resources, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred, to go further. I also note that through the Transport Committee I received representations from Brompton Bicycle, a very good British manufacturing success story, which said that UK product safety regulations and enforcement have failed to keep pace with the development of e-bike technology. Unsafe, poor quality e-bike products are entering the hands of UK consumers with sometimes devastating consequences.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Many constituents around the country will appreciate the specific points he makes about the changing product environment, and the way that product design and development is moving very quickly. I have a large number of residents who are concerned about e-bikes being ridden irresponsibly, home-made kits attached to bicycles, and cyclists often speeding on pavements. That is an interesting example of how the Bill could be very effective, so I thank him for his work on that.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that was one of the areas to which he paid a lot of attention in the transport brief. I am sure that as the Committee continues to look into this area, it will build on that work. As he says, this is an issue that comes up time and again in my constituency. We might not ever be able to get every single one of those vehicles off the road, but we need the powers to bring more of them off our streets where they pose a threat to people’s safety.
To illustrate the seriousness of the challenges the Government face and the need sometimes for very swift progress, we need only to look to the scale of technological advancements in the field of hybrid warfare and the implications of those advancements for dual-use civilian technologies. I note that clause 1(4)(d) draws specific attention to products that can
“cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance.”
In Ukraine, the two adversaries are locked into a cycle of innovation and reaction in drone warfare and electronic countermeasures that are escalating at a blinding speed. Some of those developments have implications for the potential misuse of civilian drones in this country. To suggest that primary legislation is capable of keeping pace with that is not realistic.
Similarly, in respect of intangible products, again an issue on which the House of Lords spent a large amount of welcome scrutiny time, there is a case that primary legislation cannot cover enough eventualities in good time, especially in the age of artificially generated code. I think back to the Volkswagen emissions scandal 10 years ago, when so-called “defeat devices” were intangible in nature.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and he has focused on some of the key issues in ways that not every speech has. He makes a powerful case, but why does he think that those arguments have not persuaded, in three different attempts in three different reports, the cross-party Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which provides expert insight into precisely such proposed legislation?
Laurence Turner
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I do not agree with his characterisation of the speeches we have heard today. I think hon. Members have brought a wide range of perspectives, and that even though there has been some disagreement across the House—and, on occasion, on the same Benches—all Members have made their points sincerely.
I have read the reports the right hon. Gentleman references and the Minister’s evidence. My reading of that report is that the Committee held a very strong view on the principle of skeleton delegated legislation, but the point it made is that the case must be made for the use of such powers. My view is that the case has been made in this instance because of the seriousness of the matters we are discussing.
Jerome Mayhew
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the conclusions of the fourth report by the expert Committee, which states:
“We remain of the view…that the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”
He is wrong in his assessment, is he not?
Laurence Turner
No. With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. The Committee has every right to express that view; we also have the right to express our view as legislators in this place as to whether the case has been made. As I say, I think the case has been made that primary legislation is not a sufficient vehicle in this instance. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that there are numerous precedents under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example, for regulating dangerous products; the difference is that primary legislation does not cover all the eventualities for products of the kind we are discussing today.
I will finish by talking about the pint. I note, in passing, that the first legislation to clearly regulate the pint—the Act for the ascertaining the Measures for retailing Ale and Beer of 1698—did not see it as necessary to define the actual quantity; perhaps it was left to royal prerogative to define. The history books do clearly show that the pint is safe, so to speak, in Labour’s hands: in his memoir of his time at head of the No. 10 policy unit, the noble Lord Donoughue details how Harold Wilson intervened to save the pint; and it was a Labour Government in 2008 who secured the metric opt-out that preserved the inch, the troy ounce and, of course, the pint.
I know that hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have spent a lot of time chasing away phantoms on this particular issue, and I hope that they feel that was a good use of their time and that we see more of it in this Parliament. For the Government Benches, however, I look forward to following the progress of this important Bill and to voting for it tonight, and perhaps also to raising a pint—or, as clause 5(5) has it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres—to the Bill’s good health as it completes its remaining stages in this House.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Forgive me for bringing the Commons back to the purpose of Parliament. Its historic purpose is to make laws for our constituents and to hold the Executive to account. That is the fundamental that has been loosened by this Bill. Although it is entirely skeletal in form, the Bill’s effect is very far-reaching indeed.
It is quite obvious that the Bill has a clear purpose, which is to align Great Britain with the EU single market on goods. If it were not so, we would not have clause 2(7). The standard that is set in that clause is the EU standard. If the Bill was just about creating the opportunity to make regulations because of a regulatory gap, it would not be tethered to the EU provisions on goods. It would be open ended, and we would be free to make the choice that best suited us. However, the giveaway clause in the Bill is clause 2(7). That lets the cat out of the bag, as indeed did the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she quite clearly indicated that that was the direction of travel that she sought. Therefore, that is the purpose.
When we look at clause 1(2), we again have the open affirmation of the desire to make the compliance with “relevant EU law”, so it is abundantly clear that this is a creation to realign us with EU law. The intent is to create this vehicle for realignment without voters noticing. Of course that means realignment with laws that we do not make and that we cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament. The ambition in this Bill in respect of clause 2(7) is to disenfranchise—as has happened already in Northern Ireland by our subjugation to the EU single market and all its rules—the people of the United Kingdom, so that, in their entirety, they are at the Government’s whim and can be subjected to laws they do not make and cannot change. That then inextricably ties us to the European Court of Justice. It is the ECJ that mediates and deliberates on those laws that this Bill wishes to tie us to. Therefore, it is an attempt to tie us not just to the EU single market, but to the court that rules the EU’s single market.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On the point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making about enfranchisement and the fact that he wishes this Parliament to be in control of the powers that it has, does he agree that it would be sensible for the UK Government to ensure that, where powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, for example, they seek consent from Scottish Ministers rather than just legislating? The Bill, as currently drafted, allows Ministers here to legislate in areas of devolved competency, much as he is making the case that the EU court would be allowed to do.
Jim Allister
One critical thing about the Bill is that, under the Sewel convention, it does not extend to secondary legislation. It does not extend to statutory instruments. The Bill drives a coach and horses through the Sewel convention as far as devolution is concerned, because it heaps all the powers into statutory instruments. One might expect such a bold move to realign the United Kingdom with EU law to be an up-front piece of legislation. I do not think that that is too much to ask—that it should be plain and clear for all to see. Instead, it is to be conveyed in these statutory instruments. And statutory instruments, as we know, are those that, in the main, pass through unnoticed. We have all been to Delegated Legislation Committees. We know that they are farcical in that the Minister comes in with a brief, which is simply rigidly read, and Members nod the motion through. It is a farcical way to make legislation of any sort.
Jerome Mayhew
Much of this debate has been about whether this Bill leads us to dynamic alignment. The Government’s position is that it does not and that this is all a mirage and a fantasy. If that is the case, does the hon. and learned Member agree that a simple amendment to this Bill to make that clear would go a long way to reassuring Members.
Jim Allister
Absolutely. If the Government are not—as many of us suspect—following a deliberate approach of circumventing debate in this House on key realignment issues, and is seeking rather to channel it through statutory instruments, then call our bluff, change this Bill in that regard. But this idea of skeleton legislation, which sets up the powers that have been taken from Parliament and given to the Executive, is something which, historically, this party of Government have railed against.
Indeed, within a week of Second Reading in the other place, the Attorney General gave the Bingham lecture. He said:
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards.”
That was the Attorney General. Where did that go to?
Sir John Hayes
I am interested in the Attorney General’s view, and we should take it seriously. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that primary legislation in this place metamorphosises in its passage through scrutiny? I have been involved in many Bills, as shadow Minister, Minister and Back Bencher, and that is precisely what happens. Ministers listen to argument, and as Bills return to the House, they reflect that argument both from here and in the Lords. Secondary legislation does not go through that process. That is why it is so important that the Bills we pass here do not contain the kind of permissive powers that facilitate so much secondary legislation.
Jim Allister
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. If one wanted to realign the United Kingdom with the EU, the easiest passage would be by statutory instruments. That is why that is the chosen mechanism here.
I have one final point. This Parliament traditionally and properly makes the law on criminal offences. We set the tariffs. Sometimes we say what the minimum penalty for a criminal offence is, but we always say what the maximum penalty is. We say what the content is of the criminal offence—what are the actus reus and the mens rea. But amazingly under clauses 3(9) and 3(11) and clauses 6(9) and 6(11) of the Bill we are going to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. Surely we have lost the run of ourselves if we think it is appropriate to make criminal offences in that essentially uncontrolled manner. It deprives this House, and therefore those we represent, of the very careful scrutiny that should always go into making something a crime. That is but another of the fundamental flaws of this undeserving Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Dr Prinsley, I am told that your speech is just a few minutes long, so I hope you will honour that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill, which will address the alarming proliferation of unsafe products in online marketplaces. I would like to talk particularly about the hazards of unsafe toys, which are increasingly being sold online.
As a very recently retired ear, nose and throat surgeon—yesterday actually—I know the very real harm that these dangerous toys cause. I have operated on young children who inhaled small components from unsafe toys, detachable parts or parts that were unsafely secured and were a choking hazard, and ribbon or string that exceeded the legal limits, creating strangulation hazards. These are frightening life-threatening situations that no family should have to put up with.
Those are not isolated incidents. A Which? investigation found that over 90% of toys purchased from some online marketplaces were unfit for sale in the UK. Shockingly, these toys falsely displayed UK and European safety marks, misleading parents into believing that they were buying something safe for their children. The tragedy is that in many of these cases the sellers simply disappear, vanishing from the platform, and the families are left with no way to seek redress from the harm caused.
That is why we must act. I am glad that the Bill will give the Government the opportunity to address this issue. It will give them the power to regulate new and emerging business models and marketplaces, which previous laws did not allow.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Lithium-ion batteries are essential for achieving our net zero goals, but as demand grows for products containing such batteries we need to do more to protect consumers against dangerous lithium-ion batteries. Since 2020, e-bike and e-scooter fires have—
Helen Maguire
Does the hon. Member agree that there should be a mechanism to recognise and regulate high-risk products so that we can protect consumers?
Peter Prinsley
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I would point out the particular danger of button batteries—something that is well known to ENT surgeons—which cause perforation of the oesophagus and the trachea by a chemical reaction.
In the last two years, 95% of consumers have purchased from online platforms, with approximately 23 million monthly transactions in UK. We certainly need strong accountability for these marketplaces. Without that, dangerous items will continue to resurface, putting children at risk. I urge the House to ensure that the Bill puts more pressure on the sellers of unsafe toys, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had excellent speeches from across the House. I think the whole House agreed on the brilliance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), and—perhaps I would say this—great speeches have come from Opposition Members in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) got to the heart and the nub of the critique of the Bill.
We have also heard many good speeches, including the last one, about issues of product safety and the need to have a system that can keep up. The speech that addressed both that issue and whether the Bill is appropriate—it was the outstanding speech by a Government Member—was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). He did not like my praise of his speech in so far as it disparaged in any way anybody else’s, but he faced up to the issues directly. He did not just say, “Well, there are these problems with products and product safety, and here’s a Bill that could do something about it.” He dealt with the fact that the Bill gives enormous power to Ministers. As colleagues across the House have pointed out, the purpose of this honourable House is to hold the Executive’s feet to the fire, hold them to account and hold them in check, and ensure that we champion the will of the people who sent us here. As has been said, not only the Minister but, back in 2018, the Secretary of State warned the House that
“the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive”.––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is not here, so I will try to be more polite than I would have been if she was, but if Brexit derangement syndrome is a condition, it is one that affects not only people who are maniacally in favour of Brexit, but those who seem unable to think rationally from the other side. The point that I tried to make to the hon. Lady in an intervention—I would make it again—is that giving such untrammelled power to Ministers is frightening, regardless of whether we prefer closer alignment with the EU. She said that we need common-sense alignment, but these powers would allow a super-ideological future Minister to come in and seek, entirely for ideological reasons, to stop any alignment with the most sensible of EU regulations purely to have some Brexit difference. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Graham Stuart
I will press on a little, but I may come back to the hon. Lady.
I understand that, following the loveless landslide that brought the Government to power, the Government, and Government Members, have done an about-face. They now delight in more powers for the Executive, so much so that the Bill’s very first subsection gives the same Secretary of State I just referenced the power to make regulations anywhere in the UK, without consulting Parliaments in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Stormont, on more or less anything he likes.
I was so pleased that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised the devolution question. I was a Minister for eight years, and such is the complexity of the devolution settlement now that even with thousands of civil servants working on primary legislation, Ministers can come to the House and suddenly it gets pointed out to them that they are in breach of the Sewel convention and ignoring how Northern Ireland has a slightly different environmental or energy regulatory environment from Scotland or Wales. They find that the situation is more complex than they first thought. Now, we are giving powers to Ministers who will not have to go through any of that rigmarole. They will not get to find out how they are trampling on the devolution settlement, and that is a serious issue.
We on the Opposition Benches can make the arguments, but what we must really do is engage Government Members and get them to recognise that they are not here just to back the Government. They need to question these things, and not just ask whether the powers could be used for good. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a brilliant speech with examples of the speeding up and pace of technological change—I think he spoke about the drones in Ukraine. Even though Opposition Members may maintain that the system that we had worked perfectly well, he made the case that perhaps we need something speedier going forward, and I can see that he made a strong argument. None the less, is the answer just to hand to Ministers, in this skeleton Bill, all the powers in the world? I suggest that it is not.
I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are decent people, and I hope that we will see, as the legislation proceeds through this House, ways to curb some of the powers while allowing us to have a regulatory system that can speedily respond to inappropriate products. None of us wants to see parliamentary pride getting in the way of an effective system; we have to find a way of making things work. This Bill, however, goes too far the other way. That is why the cross-party experts on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have looked at it and said that they do not feel that the case has been made to justify such massive powers.
Some parallels were raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and I think it is fair enough to say, “Look at the way that Henry VIII powers and delegated powers were taken by the Government in the last Parliament.” Quite rightly, people questioned it, but that was about implementing Brexit; it really was something enormous that had to be done at a reasonable speed. Those of us involved were cognisant of the fact that we did not want it to set a precedent; we did not want Government to take the unique conditions of implementing Brexit and take it as a new way of governing. To the comment from the hon. Member for Erewash about rebuilding the world that the ancient Egyptians had, they were very good at centralising authority and I do not think that that is an entirely good thing. That is exactly what the Bill does, so I agree with him on that.
I am sure the Secretary of State is an excellent judge of things such as the safe operation of a laptop, say, for a trainee solicitor, but he will now have the power to regulate any product for sale in the UK on the basis of safety or functionality. The immense power given to him will allow him to decide what is and is not sold in the UK, without consulting this place and by merely providing a written statement. The Bill goes further, with Ministers acquiring the power to give inspectors the right to enter somebody’s home to seize any product that the Minister has decided, on the basis of non-compliance. That can be imposed on manufacturers, marketers, installers, importers or people who run an online marketplace, the definition of which, by the way, can be altered on a ministerial whim and at any point.
We have heard about dangerous and often unpopular electric bikes and scooters, but the powers in the Bill allow a future Secretary of State—we have had some eccentric ones in the past—to decide to ban bicycles because he considers them to be dangerous. He might look at the figures on that. After publishing a statement, he could instruct anyone he likes to enter the house of every bike owner and every bike shop to seize every bike in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State could effectively end cycling in the UK without coming to Parliament. He could create legions of cycle inspectors who could enter people’s homes or businesses and seize their property before disposing of it. And the Government want to hide this act under the innocuous name of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. It is a massive power to give to the Secretary of State.
I say this to the many new Labour Members: I am not very keen on any Government, even the one of which I was a member. It was Lord Acton who said:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Well, there is an element of absolute power in this Bill, but we have an opportunity both to recognise the powerful case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield for an appropriate system and by his colleagues talking about different challenges, and to make sure that we limit and reduce those powers as the Bill goes through the House. I know that my cycle example is a little extreme, but it is also true. It would not require the Government to return to this House; they would be able to do it.
The Prime Minister has told us that the No. 1 mission of this Government is growth, yet his Ministers, not satisfied with taking the fastest growing economy in the entire G7 and bringing it to a shuddering halt, have introduced what may be the most tediously named but potentially dangerous Bill in the history of Parliament. We can look at what the Government have done for business so far. They have ended the rate relief for hospitality, made part-time workers too expensive to hire, hiked the cost of employing people through next week’s jobs tax, strengthened the trade unions and made it impossible to fire new workers. I would not want to exaggerate this Bill’s role, but in a crowded field, it takes the biscuit in many ways. Businesses are struggling to cope with all these things already, and now we will have greater business uncertainty caused by the fact that Ministers can, on a whim, choose which products can and cannot be sold. This will provide the exact opposite of the certainty that Labour Members suggested the Bill could bring, in a way that has no logic behind it.
Jerome Mayhew
Every single one of the measures in that infamous list that my right hon. Friend just went through required a vote in this House, and Labour Members had to put their name to each proposed legislative change. They will not have to do that under this legislation, will they?
Graham Stuart
They will not. The Secretary of State—not the current wonderful, benign, insightful and genial Secretary of State, but a future rather less palatable one—could wake up one day and impose new regulations on business that effectively strangle and bring red tape to every business in the land. Remember how close we were in 2017 to having a Government that would have been very different from the one that is opposite us today, or indeed from the Conservatives.
Why are the Government doing this? I cannot look into a man’s soul, but I have an idea, because Labour spent years fighting the UK’s attempts to remove the burden of regulation on business after we left the EU. At every turn, Labour tried to cling to nurse rather than let businesses innovate and sell their goods. This Government are seeking to undermine and erode the freedoms we have won over the last few years. Indeed, that is in black and white in the Bill. The Secretary of State may reimpose EU law on products without the requirement to come to this place and ask our permission to do so.
I am not saying that this is the worst thing the Government have done. As I have said, there is quite a packed list, including cutting the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the farm tax, the jobs tax, imposing stamp duty on first-time buyers, which comes in, I think, today—[Interruption.] Suddenly someone wants to buy a house. There is also the hospitality tax. I could go on, but executive powers are at their most pernicious when they have no limits. This legislation is not about metrology or about the better regulation of products; it is about giving the Government the power to do what they like, when they like, for reasons they do not have to explain, and then impose it as they see fit. The fact that we might like, and even trust, the current Secretary of State is no reason to give powers like this to Ministers about whom we know nothing now. I hope that Labour Members will join us in opposing this Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been a genuinely important, interesting and lively debate on product regulation and metrology. It has also been a debate about the balance of power between the Executive and us here in Parliament. The UK product safety and metrology framework is derived from European Union law and it developed while the UK was a member of the EU, when we did not have the opportunity here to address product safety in our changing world as rapidly as we do now.
Following our departure from the European Union, the UK established its independent regulatory system, which must be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and address changes in consumer purchasing behaviours. As the Bill’s explanatory notes state, its purpose is to ensure that the UK is better equipped to tackle modern safety challenges, safeguard consumers, seize opportunities for economic growth and so on.
The Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and I want to emphasise that it was not. I want to offer the Minister the chance to correct the record in his closing remarks, in case the House has been inadvertently misled.
Upon leaving the European Union, the UK created the UK conformity assessed marking, known as the UKCA, to replace the conformité Européenne marking, known as the CE. These markings are used by manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity. The UK still recognises CE markings; however, the EU does not recognise the UKCA. Will the Minister confirm that discussions are happening with the EU, including the resetting of discussions on trade, to ensure that UKCA markings and any products regulated here in the UK are mutually recognised?
Turning to the points raised in today’s excellent debate, we heard fantastic speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). We also heard powerful voices from Northern Ireland on the adjacent Benches, from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We also heard the expertise that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) brings from his background in the toy industry.
From the Labour Benches, we heard impassioned speeches often about product safety, including from the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). She described us as sinners repenting, which I hasten to surmise might mean that she is a repenter beginning to sin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is a passionate advocate for ceramics from his constituency. We had the pleasure of hearing a masterclass from Parliament’s first metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), on the ancient history of metrology; it was a very enjoyable speech. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
Before embarking on the reason why we will oppose the Bill tonight, I welcome the Government’s U-turn in the other place on their plans to rule over the size of the great British pint or, as the hon. Member for Erewash would describe it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Although they were initially resistant, Ministers eventually recognised that our great British pint should remain untouched. I am afraid that that is all I can welcome about this piece of legislation, because the Opposition are deeply concerned with the Government’s overreach and excessive reliance on delegated powers within the Bill.
Henry VIII would be absolutely delighted by this piece of legislation. Labour Members claim that it will simplify our regulatory framework, yet all we see is the undermining of our sovereignty and the powers of Parliament. This 15-page Bill would give the Secretary of State unchecked powers to amend product safety regulations, change the definition of an online marketplace and introduce new penalties, inspection powers and charges on businesses, driving up the already soaring costs of doing business in the UK. As many hon. Friends have said, it would grant the Government sweeping powers to make us a passive recipient of laws made in Brussels. International trade and co-operation are welcome, but this is not what more than 17 million people voted for in 2016, when we took back control—it is a betrayal of Brexit.
The Bill is not purely technical; part of its purpose is to allow the dynamic alignment of goods with EU single market laws, giving the EU the power to rule on standards for manufactured goods produced in the United Kingdom. This EU Trojan horse Bill could see us readopting a regulatory regime over which we have no influence, input or sanction, leaving us as rule takers, not rule makers.
It is fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes through delegated legislation.
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State.
Tomorrow, the United States could impose tariffs on us. It is paramount that we secure a mutually beneficial UK-US trade deal as soon as possible, but I cannot see how the Bill, which drags us closer to the European Union, would give the United States any incentive to work with us.
In closing, let me ask the Minister a few questions. Can he confirm what the limits will be on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have of regulatory changes made under the Bill? What consultation will occur with the real-world businesses that are affected by the change? Will he confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede UK businesses from trading internationally?
The Bill undermines Parliament and risks tying British businesses to EU red tape on which we have no say. We cannot allow these excessive powers to create further uncertainty among British businesses of all sizes, which already face the soaring costs of doing business because of the Chancellor’s tax grab. The Bill is a parliamentary sovereignty sell-out. We got Brexit done; let us keep it that way. The Bill gives away control, and that is why I call on the House to back our amendment and stop it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for what has been an interesting and, at times, informed debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening, the Government’s primary mission is economic growth to help rejuvenate our high streets and promote innovation, and this legislation is an important element in that drive and will further cement the UK as a world-leader in product regulation and safety. The legislation will have real-world impacts that we can all relate to. As we have heard, product safety failures can have devastating consequences, and we are determined that our regulatory framework be as agile and flexible as possible in its response to new threats and complex modern supply chains but without stifling innovation.
There have been an awful lot of contributions, and I will try to cover as many of them as I can. I think it is appropriate that I start by referencing the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), which lit up the whole House. He is, of course, the first meteorologist to have spoken in this Chamber—
Justin Madders
Metrologist. He may well be on the Bill Committee, because he has definitely talked his way on to it with his insight into this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) almost matched him in terms of technical specificity, and his historical knowledge was also very important. He has just finished sitting on a Bill Committee with me, but he is talking his way on to this one as well—perhaps I should not say that, because it might encourage colleagues not to speak in future debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), were among a number of Members who talked about the issue of e-bikes, which is a real concern. I am sure the whole House has been moved by the tragic cases of e-bike fires that we too often hear about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the tragic death of Sofia Duarte. I met her mother last year to talk about what we can do through this Bill to prevent such tragedies from happening again.
In the wake of the increasing number of fires associated with e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries, there have been calls from businesses, trade associations, consumer groups and parliamentarians to tighten up the law. This legislation will allow us to ensure that the UK’s product safety framework can keep up with technological developments, including on e-bikes. The powers in the Bill will allow us to update regulations to ensure the best protections for consumers and consistency with the majority of reputable retailers.
The Government are currently considering how best to use the powers in the Bill to regulate these products in an efficient and proportionate way, in particular to ensure that products that can pose a greater risk, such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes and e-scooters, are safe. That includes bringing forward powers in the Bill to better define online marketplaces and confer additional duties on them to help stop the sale of unsafe products, including converter kits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) pointed out, this is a fast-moving environment, and the Bill will give us the flexibility to tackle that.
Clive Jones
Does the Minister agree that if a UK manufacturer wants to produce a product for the UK market, it should produce it to UK regulations, and if it wants to export it to Europe, it is sensible to produce that product to EU regulations, which will open up a massive market on our doorstep? Keeping up with EU regulations will generally be good for the British business economy and help economic growth.
Justin Madders
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors.
While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him.
It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill.
Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to
“stop banging on about Europe”,
but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.
I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place,
“the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.”
He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be
“little, if any, time for anything else.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.]
Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it.
Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said:
“It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.”
If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines.
This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Trail Hunting
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to secure my first Adjournment debate, and for it to be on an issue so close to my heart: trail hunting and, more broadly, animal welfare.
Put simply, animal cruelty should have no place in modern, progressive 21st-century Britain. Having spent most of my life living in rural areas, I have witnessed at first hand the brutal reality of hunting with dogs. Contrary to the views of some, that opinion is shared by many rural residents. It is imperative that as lawmakers we address the concerns surrounding trail hunting, particularly in light of the Hunting Act 2004 and the Government’s manifesto commitments.
Fox hunting is not a sport. It is an activity that involves tracking, chasing and killing a fox, typically using a pack of hounds and riders on horseback. It was banned by the last Labour Government through Hunting Act 2004. Drag hunting is an activity similar to traditional foxhunting, but with a key difference: instead of hunting a live fox, a scent trail is artificially laid for the hounds to follow. The scent is usually created using a mixture of aniseed and other substances, and it is dragged along a predetermined route. Just to be clear, I have no issues with drag hunting.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says that out of control hounds on trail hunts have harmed people, pets and themselves in residential areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is urgent that trail hunting should be banned as soon as possible to close the loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004?
Mr Speaker
Order. I advise Members that it is easier for us to hear them if they look to the microphone.
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I entirely agree.
Trail hunting, as it is commonly understood, involves a pack of hounds following a scent trail laid by a human, with the intention that hounds will follow the trail, rather than chase and kill a wild animal. The functional difference between that and drag hunting is that animal-based scents of the traditional hunting quarry are used in trail hunting. That is usually fox urine, but the body parts and carcases of foxes, deer and hares can also be used. On the surface, it appears to be a harmless activity. However, there is now overwhelming evidence to suggest that trail hunting has become a thinly veiled pretence for illegal hunting activities under the Hunting Act.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. In my constituency several hunts, including the Heythrop hunt and the Warwickshire hunt which crosses the county border, have been caught red-handed hunting live foxes. Does he agree that such incidents show how urgent it is for the Government to honour their manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting?
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not only that, but in his constituency I have personally cleared land on which local hunts had created an environment for foxes to thrive. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that fox hunting is of any use in terms of pest control. It is not.
The 2004 Act was a response to the growing public outcry over the brutality of hunting practices. It made it illegal to hunt with hounds except in certain circumstances, in the case of registered hunts using scent trails.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to him before the debate, so he knows where I am coming from. I have a very different opinion, and the hon. Gentleman knows that; he respects that, and I respect him. I just wanted to put that on the record.
This is clearly a devolved matter, so England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will make their own decisions separately. The hon. Gentleman has outlined his point of view, but does he agree that the hunting community deserve to have their voices heard and considered in that legislative process? The hunting community would dispute some of what has been said tonight. Just for the record, as a hunting man—one who has never hunted with horses or hounds—I think the hunting community should have the right to pursue it. What does the hon. Gentleman think? Before we go any further, let’s get the other point of view.
Perran Moon
I think it is absolutely right that all voices are heard, but that science is followed. Legislation should be based on evidence and science, and the evidence and the science suggest that the cruelty to the animal being pursued far outweighs the pleasure the hunt will give human beings. However, I am really happy for all voices to be heard in this debate.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The law must also be followed. The fact that 46% of registered trail hunts end up chasing a fox proves that the law needs tightening up and that we need tougher sentencing. Ultimately, this Labour Government will deliver that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a priority?
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I do agree, and I will be coming on to that later.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am sorry to make another intervention on the hon. Gentleman—my neighbour in Cornwall. He is probably aware that I spent hundreds of hours in this House on this matter before the 2004 Act; I was pleased that in spite of all the intimidation and threats that I received at the time, the Act still went through. The point was made earlier that the voices of those who get their kicks out of chasing wild animals for sport need to be heard, and indeed they have been: we have already heard that the leaders of trail hunts admit that they are, indeed, a smokescreen. They have used that word themselves to describe what goes on with trail hunts.
Perran Moon
I agree with the hon. Member, and thank him not just for his intervention but for all his work to raise awareness.
The Hunting Act did not go far enough. It left certain loopholes, particularly the allowance for trail hunting, which has meant that the law is often undermined according to the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Despite the requirement for hunts to obtain landowner permission and follow strict regulations, there is significant evidence that trail hunts often lead to the unlawful hunting of foxes and other wild animals.
According to sources in Cornwall, there are five foxhound packs. Alongside trail hunts, some of those packs have continued to hunt foxes illegally and have been filmed sending hounds to dig out foxes hiding in holes, woodland and hedges. Many landowners continue to suffer horse and hound trespass, and uncontrolled hounds regularly end up spilling out on to roads, causing a danger to road users, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell).
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Meur ras th’am keren—that is my very best Cornish, and I will not try to repeat it unless I have time to practise. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. To go back to his point about the difference between drag hunting and trail hunting, a lot of the negative things that he describes would not come from drag hunts, which have predetermined routes and use a different type of scent. For the avoidance of doubt for anybody listening at home, particularly those in the hunting community who may be concerned, might we just reconfirm that this is about trail hunting, not drag hunting?
Perran Moon
I can say once again that I have no issues with drag hunting; this is about trail hunting. Trail hunts are often deliberately laid in areas inhabited by foxes, increasing the likelihood of hounds disturbing, chasing and killing a fox or other animals when the scent of live quarry is picked up.
These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader pattern of behaviour that undermines the intent of the Hunting Act. For example, between August 2023 and March 2024, during the last hunting season, several reports were made of illegal hunting incidents, including cub hunting, where the claim of trail hunting was used as a defence. In many of these cases, the evidence suggests that the scent trail is often a formality, with hunts continuing to chase and kill wildlife.
Several major landowners have taken steps to restrict trail hunting. The National Trust, Natural Resources Wales and Forestry England have all banned trail hunting. Additionally, United Utilities and the Lake District national park have suspended trail hunting activities, with the Lake District national park’s suspension described as “indefinite”. The Ministry of Defence has also halted the issuance of any licences for trail hunting on its land.
Additionally, in February 2025, the national lead on fox hunting crime, Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, publicly stated that
“of all the cases that I have reviewed”—
this is a point that was made earlier—
“where there have been successful prosecutions of the Hunting Act, trail hunting has been used as a defence.”
His comments reflect the disturbing reality that trail hunting is providing a smokescreen for illegal fox hunting.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. His thesis seems to be that, because the direct hunting of foxes was made illegal, trail hunting is being us as a cover for it. What would happen if he had his way and trail hunting was banned as well? Would it not then be possible for drag hunting to be used in some way as a cover for illegal fox hunting? If so, is not this an endless process, and should he not come out and say straightaway that he wants every form of this activity stopped?
Perran Moon
I think that I have twice made the point that I have no issue with drag hunting. With drag hunting, the scent that is followed is not that of the carcase of an animal or the urine of an animal. Therefore, the likelihood that there will be wild animals included in drag hunting is much, much smaller. The evidence from the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports supports the view that drag hunting is completely different from trail hunting, and that there is no issue with drag hunting. It is really important that this is not seen to be a witch hunt against people who want to have a hack across the countryside with dogs on a specific and pre-planned route. It is a really important nuance within rural communities that we are not against all forms of horse riding. We want to make sure that wildlife and the natural environment are protected, so, respectfully, I do not agree with the right hon. Member.
In fact, the League Against Cruel Sports’ own analysis reveals that trail hunting has been used as a defence in cases involving alleged illegal hunting by registered hunts. That highlights the major issues with the current legislation, as the existing law is often unable sufficiently to hold to account those who flout the regulations under the guise of trail hunting.
Moreover, enforcement in the field has proven difficult. Although hunts are operating illegally, knowingly or intentionally hunting live quarry, it can often be challenging to prove that in court. The impact on animal welfare is significant, with wild animals, particularly foxes, being forced to run long distances while being relentlessly pursued, after which they are torn limb from limb while still alive by a pack of uncontrollable hounds. The suffering does not stop there. Non-target animals, including domestic pets and livestock, have also been disturbed, attacked and even killed when hunts veer off course, creating havoc in residential areas and rural communities.
This issue is not a matter for one party alone. Support for banning trail hunting crosses party lines. MPs from various political parties, including the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party, have all expressed concern over trail hunting’s role in perpetuating illegal hunting activities. This broad cross-party support demonstrates a shared commitment to protecting animals, wildlife and the natural environment. I strongly believe it is time for us to come together and close this loophole once and for all.
Public opinion on hunting in the UK has shifted dramatically over the years. Around 80% of the British public support the ban on hunting with dogs, and many of those people would like to see trail hunting banned as well. The moral case for ending trail hunting is clear: it is inconsistent with the values of a modern, compassionate society that respects animal welfare. Hunting, whether through traditional or trail methods, often takes place in areas of natural beauty and fragile ecosystems. The disturbance caused by hounds and hunters can have lasting effects on the local wildlife, disrupt natural habitats, and lead to long-term ecological damage. Given the increasing concern over biodiversity and the need to protect our natural environment, banning trail hunting would be a positive step in safeguarding the UK’s wildlife and habitats.
We need to strengthen the Hunting Act 2004 to make sure it delivers the protection that animals need. That means banning trail hunting, removing exemptions that enable illegal hunting and introducing custodial sentences for those who break the law.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. While a pledge to ban trail hunting is welcome, I fear that it could be insufficient. If legislation focuses solely on the term “trail hunting”, hunts may adopt new euphemisms to exploit existing loopholes to continue their activities. Does my hon. Friend agree that effective reform must go beyond a symbolic ban and address the entire framework that enables illegal hunting to carry on?
Perran Moon
I agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to those changes, we must extend the time available to charge in illegal hunting cases, reverse the burden of proof of compliance with exemptions, and make hunting a notifiable offence. These steps would make it easier to enforce the law and ensure that those who break it face the consequences. I thank the Minister for his time today and I look forward to his response on this issue.
The way we treat our wildlife reflects the kind of society we are and the legacy we will leave for future generations. For me, hunting animals with dogs is nothing less than a profoundly cruel activity. It is an activity that I, like most of my fellow Labour MPs, campaigned during the general election to ban. Today I stand before this House to say that it is time to take decisive action and fulfil our promise to the electorate, and end trail hunting in the United Kingdom once and for all.
Dan Norris (North East Somerset and Hanham) (Lab)
I should declare an interest as chair of the League Against Cruel Sports. Drag hunting was invented 200 years ago. It is a peaceful activity. Trail hunting is not. It is designed to get around the current legislation. Why does my hon. Friend think that centuries of tradition are being ignored by the pro-hunting fraternity?
Perran Moon
My hon. Friend raises a difficult question. Society moves on, and people’s values change. Over the course of the last few decades, society has come to respect animal welfare far more than it ever had done before. Hunting was and is perceived to be a traditional rural activity, but that does not mean it is right. It is wrong. In a modern 21st-century Britain, it has to be banned. We have to bring in these changes. As I said, I have no issue with people who want to have a hack across the countryside in a controlled manner, but I have a profound problem if the outcome of that activity is the destruction of wild animals and the local environment.
My question to the Minister is a simple one. When will the Government make available parliamentary time to bring forward the necessary changes to the Hunting Act 2004 to ban trail hunting?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing his first Adjournment debate and speaking with such knowledge and passion about this important subject. I welcome the valuable opportunity to close the debate by outlining the Government’s strong commitment to animal welfare priorities, including taking action on trail hunting. I also thank all hon. Members who intervened during my hon. Friend’s speech, because they showed the interest and passion there is on this subject.
The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. Banning trail hunting is only one part of that. We will also end puppy smuggling and puppy farming, ban the use of snare traps and ban the importation of hunting trophies. We are supporting the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, which will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules that are abused by unscrupulous traders. It will also give the Government powers to prevent the supply of low-welfare pets to the United Kingdom. We will prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens under six months old, dogs and cats with non-exempt mutilations such as cropped ears, and heavily pregnant dogs and cats.
We are committed to tackling low-welfare dog breeding practices to bring an end to puppy farming. As part of that, we are carefully considering the results of the post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, the recommendations from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s inquiry into pet welfare and abuse, and the animal welfare committee’s opinion on canine breeding practices.
As was outlined in our manifesto, we will also bring an end to the use of snare traps in England. I am aware that both the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have brought in bans on the use of snares in recent years, and we are now considering the most effective way to deliver on that commitment. We will set out the next steps in due course. In the meantime, anyone using snares has a responsibility under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to ensure that their activities do not harm protected species or cause any unnecessary suffering.
The Government are also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals. The UK has a long history of championing global conservation, and the Government are carefully reviewing how to introduce effective legislation as soon as possible. We welcome the establishment of the national animal welfare panel by the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare and look forward to working with it in the future. As a recent report from the animal sentience committee stated, there is work to do to improve compliance with animal welfare regulation. We will be considering recommendations and proposals as we work to bring that about.
I know that hon. Members in the Chamber will share my deep concern about the recent high-profile incidents of hare coursing that have been in the news. Hare coursing is an abhorrent activity that can quickly shatter rural communities’ sense of safety and security. It is a serious crime, which is often carried out by organised criminal gangs. It is vital that rural communities are protected by effective policing to ensure enforcement of the law. DEFRA, alongside the Home Office, is working jointly with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver an updated rural and wildlife crime strategy. This joined-up approach between Government and policing will help to ensure that the entire weight of Government is brought to bear on tackling rural and wildlife crimes.
The Government are continuing to provide support to the national wildlife crime unit alongside the national rural crime unit. Those units will receive £800,000 from the Home Office in 2025-26. DEFRA will also provide the national wildlife crime unit with a further £424,000 to help prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats, and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations. That includes cases of cruelty to wildlife and supporting local police forces to take positive action against those who break the law through illegal fox hunting.
Let me turn to the primary focus of this debate: trail hunting. As we are aware, the Hunting Act 2004 made it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with dogs, except where it is carried out in accordance with the exemptions in the Act. Those found guilty under the Act are subject to the full force of the law. However, as many have said here today, the nature of trail hunting makes it difficult to ensure that wild mammals such as foxes are not endangered. The trail is not laid constantly but is occasionally lifted for a distance and dropped again to allow the hounds to search for the scent. Huntsmen and followers often do not know where trails have been laid and that can mean that, at times, the scents of wild animals are picked up. That makes it challenging to protect foxes, as well as other wild animals such as deer and hares.
From November 2023 to March 2024, as we have heard, the League Against Cruel Sports reported nearly 526 incidents of suspected illegal hunting and 870 incidents of hunts causing distress or nuisance. That is why the Government are committed to going further by putting in place a ban on trail hunting. My hon. Friend asked for a specific timeline. I am afraid that, at the moment, I cannot give him that, but I want to assure Members that we are working to move this forward and will deliver a thorough consultation later this year to ensure that the legislation that is brought forward is effective in practice and that its impact is understood.
I also appreciate that, as we have heard, there are people in this House who will not welcome a change in the law. I want to reassure Members here today that the Government recognise the contribution made to the rural economy by supporting professions such as farriers, vets and feed merchants. We will, of course, look closely at the impact that any changes may make. We will consult relevant stakeholders at the appropriate time and further announcements will be made in due course.
More generally, we will pull together an overarching approach to animal welfare across farmed animals, companion animals and wild animals. We have been meeting key stakeholders from each of those sectors and want to work in partnership with them on improving animal welfare. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for securing tonight’s debate, and I very much look forward to working closely with him in future to secure progress on this very important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Draft East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025 and the draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.
Janet Daby
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.
The draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 24 February 2025. If they are approved, the Department for Education will transfer adult education functions and associated adult skills funding to local areas for the start of the new academic year on 1 August 2025. The local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills funding as they see fit to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
The specific adult education functions being transferred to the three local areas are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. They will be carried out by the local areas, instead of by the Secretary of State for Education. The functions are: education and training for persons aged 19 or over; learning aims for such persons and provision of facilities; payment of tuition fees for statutory entitlements for certain individuals—those preceding functions are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention, or any power to make regulations or orders—the encouragement of education and training for persons aged 19 or over; provision of financial resources; and provision of financial resources in connection with technical education.
Devolution of adult skills funding to local areas is a key part of this Government’s mission to improve opportunities for all and to grow our economy. Many adults across England do not have the skills that they need to access good jobs, to progress in their career or to move into a new industry. The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills that they need to equip them for work, by undertaking an apprenticeship or further learning. The Government usually make around £1.4 billion of funding available each year to deliver that provision, including funding for free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills, and free courses for jobs.
That funding provides an essential stepping stone towards a better future, especially for adults with the lowest skills or who are least able to help themselves. Local areas, not central Government, are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. The Government’s “English Devolution White Paper” sets out how giving local areas the powers and freedoms to decide how they spend their funding is the best way to deliver opportunity and growth that makes a real difference to people’s lives.
Devolution is about giving power back to communities—shifting them away from Westminster and towards the local leaders who know their areas best. Devolving adult education functions and associated adult skills funding enables local areas to shape their adult education provision directly to meet local needs. Local areas will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges to address barriers more effectively, to enhance economic growth and to bring greater prosperity to their regions.
Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding functions offer to identify adults in their region who are most in need, and to invest more funding to support those groups; to work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs; and to set funding rates that incentivise delivery of provision.
Ten local areas already have devolved powers, and we can see those making a real difference locally. I recognise that the nature of the challenges and the solutions will be different in every region, and I welcome the range of opportunities and priorities for the three proposed new devolved areas, and how they intend to use their adult skills funding to address various matters. For example, the York and North Yorkshire combined authority intends to use its devolved adult skills funding to respond better to local skills priorities and transition to carbon negative by widening access and participation, raising awareness of local adult skills provision to residents, and developing more flexible provision to respond to local economic needs. The East Midlands combined county authority region intends to tackle economic inactivity among specific demographic groups or in areas of highest deprivation, and in priority sectors such as health, retail and manufacturing. Cornwall council intends to improve the wellbeing of local residents, responding to the demographic needs of a rapidly ageing population, and focusing training on priority sectors such as hospitality, adult social care and agriculture.
If the draft statutory instruments are approved, Cornwall, the east midlands and the York and North Yorkshire local areas will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocation efficiently and effectively, to deliver for their local residents. My Department has worked closely with each area over the past two years to ensure that they are ready to take on the functions, and we have provided initial funding to help them prepare effectively and to support a smooth transition. Each local area has carried out the relevant consultations for their region and received local consent to the transfer of the powers and the making of the statutory instruments. They have each published a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities, and they have submitted further evidence against readiness criteria set out by my Department, which demonstrates that they have the systems in place to manage the functions effectively.
I confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, we have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. To support future devolution and to identify best practice, my Department will continue to hold constructive conversations with existing strategic authorities, other local areas, and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We are confident that devolution can help to shape future skills provision to meet local needs. I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations, colleagues and the constituent authorities of Cornwall, York and North Yorkshire, and East Midlands for their time, expertise and input to get to this important milestone.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to have the draft statutory instruments being put into effect. The agreements were struck under previous Conservative Governments; as we agreed the devolution of powers, we will not pray against them.
I want to put the draft regulations and order into a little context, however, because the Government have just cut the adult skills budget by 6%—something that Ministers previously condemned the previous Government for, only to do exactly the same. We need to see devolution in that context and in that of the wider uncertainty created by Government about skills funding. For example, providers are crying out for certainty about the 10% uplift for T-levels. They want to know whether that will continue this year, but Ministers seem unable to tell them. Also, in the main Chamber yesterday, I quoted the British Chambers of Commerce and other employer organisations’ warning about the funding uncertainty for apprenticeships, with the Government’s plans to allow 50% of the money to be taken away to spend on other things. That is already causing real damage and leading to a reduction in hiring decisions, yet the uncertainty continues and the damage from the Budget likewise.
That is the context of the skills devolution. Earlier in the House, the Minister announced ongoing funding for special guardianship, after the money had gone out. When Ministers were dragged before the House was the point at which they made the decision—when they were literally a day overdue. I hope that we will not see the same thing in skills policy, because that would lead to real damage to skills in this country.
I want to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions, even though we agreed these devolution deals and welcome them. Firstly, what share of the budget will be devolved once all the already agreed devolution of adult skills spending is complete? The explanatory memorandum says that 62% of the ASF is already devolved. What share will that be once the devolution is complete, and what sum in total will be devolved to the delegated authorities once complete?
Secondly, obviously a very large part of the ASF is already bound up with statutory entitlements, which are listed at paragraph 5.6 of the policy context in the explanatory memorandum. Those who work in the mayoral combined authorities have said to me, “Look, you get this budget devolved to you, but you find that a lot of it is gone once you’ve funded those statutory entitlements, so you have less real flexibility than you might think.” What is the Department’s assessment of what proportion of the devolved budget, for those authorities where it is already devolved, goes on things outside those four statutory entitlements that are listed at paragraph 5.6? In a sense, what proportion of the budget is really devolved versus just going to a local level to be spent on nationally set statutory entitlements? How much of the money is really devolved?
With those questions in mind, I will not pray against these regulations, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me what devolution will really mean in practice.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I welcome the devolution of this money to Cornwall, and I am pleased that the Launceston adult education centre will remain open as a direct result of local people there standing up and making their voices heard. Unfortunately, the adult education centre in Camelford is still set to close. That is baffling decision. This is an area with limited public transport, high levels of deprivation and real need for accessible education and support. Removing this service risks cutting people off from opportunity entirely. Simply telling them to go elsewhere is not an option.
These centres provide far more than learning. They are safe, welcoming spaces where people build confidence, access support services and begin to move forward in their lives step by step—all things that cannot just be replaced by an online equivalent. I recently met a constituent who is a single mum living in Bude in the north-east corner of my constituency, who travels every week to Newquay for her adult education course on counselling—a journey that takes one hour and 20 minutes on two buses. Now that Cornwall has secured more than £10 million in devolved funding for adult skills, we should be expanding the provision, not winding it down. I hope that that happens following this announcement. We must use this funding to create a service that is better promoted, more responsive and rooted in communities such as Camelford, which desperately need them. We must ensure that no one is left behind, and that every adult in Cornwall has the opportunity to learn, grow and contribute.
Janet Daby
I thank the Committee members for their contributions to the debate, and I will endeavour to answer their questions. In response to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, currently 62% of the ASF is devolved to nine mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. If the statutory instruments are approved, they will receive devolved ASF from 1 August 2025. A total of 67.5% of the ASF will then be devolved nationally. The percentage change represented by each of the three areas is as follows: York and North Yorkshire 0.8%; east midlands 3.98% and Cornwall 0.76%.
I welcome what the hon. Member said. Devolution is about giving freedom to those who understand local needs best so that resources can be managed more effectively and deliver greater positive impacts for local people. The Government inherited a very challenging fiscal context, and we have had to make a small reduction to the overall adult skills budget for next year. However, we will still be investing £1.4 billion in the adult skills fund next year. It is in the region of 3% across the academic year, which equates to around £40 million.
Let me reiterate the important strategic role that devolution has to play in the growth of our economy. I recognise what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, and I invite him to have further conversations with the Government on that.
Neil O’Brien
Could the Minister find out what proportion of the devolved ASF goes on statutory entitlements at the moment? That is the measure of whether this is really devolved. We all agree on the importance of devolution and so on, but is it real devolution or, in fact, are these devolved authorities ultimately having to spend money on things that we have decided? What proportion of the devolved budget is currently being spent on those four statutory entitlements?
Janet Daby
I outlined the areas that will be devolved, and I explained how much funding will be given for those devolved areas. The national statutory entitlement is to get the equivalent of GCSE level in maths and English, so that young people aged 19 to 23 have a second chance to get qualifications. Consultation has taken place in those three areas, and overwhelmingly, over 60% have confidence that the devolved money will be used for those local areas.
Neil O’Brien
It is entirely my fault that I did not explain clearly what I meant. We are in complete agreement about the policy, but what I am keen to understand from the Department—the Minister may need to write to me on this point—is: how much of the money that has already been devolved is being spent on statutory entitlements, and what proportion of it can, therefore, be spent on things that are not statutory entitlements? It is a question of fact rather than of great policy disagreement.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that he is after the detail. I will endeavour to write to him with that information.
As the country responds to an increasing number of internal and external challenges, there can be no doubt about how reliant we are on a skilled and flexible workforce, and how important it is that we support all adults to become an active part of that workforce, to deliver our growth agenda. Devolving adult skills, functions and funding to the east midlands, York and North Yorkshire and Cornwall’s local areas will help to ensure that adult education provision is tailored to meet local needs and create the best conditions in which we can collectively deliver on these aims. I commend the order and the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT EAST MIDLANDS COMBINED COUNTY AUTHORITY (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.—(Janet Daby.)
Draft YORK AND NORTH YORKSHIRE COMBINED AUTHORITY (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.—(Janet Daby.)
Income threshold for partner and family visas
Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please will everyone switch electronic devices off or to silent? I am afraid that no food or drinks are permitted in the sittings, except for water, which is provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass their written notes to the Hansard colleague in the room, to my left.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The purpose of grouping is to limit, in so far as that is possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing—please do bob, because if you do not, I will not see you. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment, or new clause or new schedule, again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and new schedules—the Member needs to let me know.
I remind Members of the rules on the declaration of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 1
Respect orders
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
We welcome this Bill, the many of the last Government’s measures it takes forward, and the opportunity to constructively debate and potentially improve it in the coming weeks.
The clause establishes the legal framework for courts to impose respect orders on individuals aged 18 or older who have engaged, or threatened to engage, in antisocial behaviour, where the court considers it just and convenient to make such an order for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour has serious and far-reaching consequences. It can fracture communities, erode trust among neighbours and make people feel unwelcome or unsafe in their own local areas. For women and girls, it can create a climate of fear, making something as simple as walking home at night a distressing and dangerous experience. It also takes a significant toll on businesses, discouraging customers from visiting high streets and town centres, and ultimately harming local economies and livelihoods. Left unchecked, antisocial behaviour can strip communities of their vibrancy and sense of security, turning once thriving areas into places that people avoid.
We must do everything we can to tackle antisocial behaviour, and the proposed respect orders can be a useful tool. Past Governments have made many and varied efforts to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. Both respect orders and antisocial behaviour orders aim to prevent antisocial behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress to others. The Bill defines antisocial behaviour for respect orders, in proposed new section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
That mirrors the definition for ASBOs under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In some ways, ASBOs were effective in targeting repeat offenders, providing a quicker alternative to prosecution and offering communities reassurance. However, their breach rates—as high as 50%—suggested that they lacked deterrent power, with some offenders even seeing them as a badge of honour.
The civil injunctions introduced by the 2014 Act also target antisocial behaviour. They use a similar definition, but have a broader scope, including, for example, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance in housing contexts. Civil injunctions have been more successful than ASBOs in reducing breaches, likely due to their more tailored restrictions and integrated support options. Unlike ASBOs, which often acted as punitive measures, injunctions take a preventive approach by aiming to stop antisocial behaviour before it escalates. They also incorporate positive requirements, such as attending rehabilitation programmes, which help individuals address the root causes of their behaviour rather than simply penalising them.
Many would argue that that shift towards early intervention and rehabilitation contributed to the greater effectiveness of civil injunctions in managing antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour can be committed by young teenage offenders, and while some cases are minor, others can have a serious impact on communities and make lives a misery for residents, denied peace in their own homes and communities. Just look at Witham library in Newland Street, which has reportedly hired a private security guard owing to a rising number of incidents, which have been blamed on local teenagers. Now, Essex county council is considering stepping up its response by issuing bodycams to librarians to deter antisocial behaviour further.
I draw attention to proposed new section A1(3), which requires that prohibitions and requirements avoid interference with the respondent’s work or education. Will the Minister outline how courts are expected to strike a balance between preventing antisocial behaviour and ensuring that individuals can continue their employment or studies? What factors will be taken into account when determining the appropriate restrictions, and how will the courts ensure that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and effective in addressing antisocial behaviour while safeguarding access to work and education?
Proposed new section A1(8) of the 2014 Act, alongside proposed new section 1A(9) introduced by schedule 1, provides that an application for a respect order may be treated as an application for a housing injunction and vice versa. That appears to be a sensible addition to allow the court flexibility. However, it would be useful for the Minister to clarify whether the Government expect one of the tools to be used more frequently than the other. Additionally, will the “harassment, alarm or distress” threshold allow the orders to be applied sufficiently broadly among housing providers?
Proposed new section B1 sets out the relevant authorities that can make applications for respect orders to the High Court or county court. Those include local authorities, housing providers, the chief officer of police for a police force area, or the chief constable of British Transport police and several other appropriate bodies. It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities, in particular when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour.
The Chair
Order. Forgive me for interrupting, shadow Minister. To be clear, we are talking about amendment 31, rather than the clause as a whole.
The Chair
We will deal with clause stand part later; we are talking about the amendment at this point. That is to save us the repetition, the point that I made earlier. Thank you, shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers
Opposition amendment 31 would lower to 16 the age at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last Thursday, in the evidence session, we heard that a large number of under-18s engage in antisocial behaviour. Does the shadow Minister agree with me and some of the witnesses we heard from that, without the age being reduced to 16, the measure will have less impact, given where a lot of the antisocial behaviour in our communities is coming from?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When you speak to some of the people who are at the sharp end of this antisocial behaviour, many of them will tell you that it is inflicted by those under 18. We heard witnesses’ concerns about where the line should be drawn. Obviously, there is a balance with respect to criminalising young people, but there is a point at which there have to be real consequences, and communities need to know that there are consequences, for those youngsters who engage in this behaviour.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
Over the past 14 or 15 years, young people have not had diversionary activities. Youth centres across the country have closed in their tens of thousands. Will the shadow Minister reflect on the fact that young people need diversionary activity, so that they are not lured into antisocial behaviour?
Matt Vickers
With a lot of these things, we need that diversionary activity and to find meaningful things for youngsters to spend their time doing. It is a big, complex mix, and we will probably address this again when we talk about knife crime. It is a big part of what we do, but there have to be sanctions for young people as well. It is not just about the young people committing antisocial behaviour; it is about the communities and the other young people that might have the antisocial behaviour—which often leads to crime—inflicted on them. It is about putting that ladder in there so that people know that, as their behaviour gets worse, the consequences and sanctions get bigger.
This is not just about punishment; but is about intervention, responsibility and, ultimately, protecting both young people and the communities in which they live. At 16, young people can work, pay taxes and make important life decisions. They are entrusted with responsibilities, and it is only right that they are also held accountable for their actions. If an individual is engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour, the courts must have the tools to intervene early, before those patterns escalate into more serious criminality.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Will the shadow Minister clarify whether it is the Conservative party’s position that we should criminalise 16-year-olds but not give them the vote?
Matt Vickers
Well, yes. The Government seem to think that we should not criminalise 16-year-olds but they should have the right to vote. I think it is the other way around: responsibilities come after people show their part in the world. I think we should be voting at 18, which allows people to become informed and knowledgeable about the process and the world around them.
If you go back to families in my constituency, some of the antisocial behaviour that they are suffering at the hands of 16-year-olds has real consequences for them, and there should be real consequences for those who inflict it upon them.
The Chair
Order. I hope Members will forgive me for saying this, but can we try not to use the word “you”? I have heard three different speakers say “you”. All speeches need to come through the Chair, and there is a reason for that—those are the courtesies of the House. Forgive me for saying that, but I think it will help the whole Committee.
Matt Vickers
I am on a mission: there will not be another infringement, Mr Pritchard.
Antisocial behaviour can devastate communities, causing distress and insecurity for residents. We cannot stand by and allow that to continue unchecked. Lowering the age to 16 would mean that we can address these issues sooner and ensure that young people receive the support and guidance—and, potentially, sanctions and deterrents—they need to change course.
Respect orders are not simply punitive measures. They come with conditions that promote rehabilitation, and provide access to education, counselling and the opportunity to turn things around. As the Minister will know, this is as much about deterrence as it is about enforcement. When young people know that there are consequences for their actions, they are less likely to engage in behaviour that harms others. By making the amendment, we would strengthen our communities, support young people and ensure that respect for others remains at the heart of society. During the evidence sessions, we heard the views of witnesses about the 16 to 18 age bracket, and I would welcome further explanation from Ministers on why 18 has been chosen as the minimum age.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Good morning, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to serve under you today.
The Bill will start to implement our safer streets mission alongside our commitment to the 13,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in our communities. Before I respond to amendment 31, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about why we are introducing respect orders. My doing so now may obviate the need for a separate debate on clause stand part.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the history of successive Governments’ attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. Last year, over a third of people experienced or witnessed some form of ASB, and there were 1 million police-recorded incidents. Existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities feel unsafe and unwelcoming.
The respect order partially replaces the existing civil injunctions power for persons aged 18 or over. It enables civil courts to make respect orders on application from a relevant authority in respect of individuals who have engaged in ASB. Authorities that can apply include the police, local authorities and registered housing providers, among others. Respect orders will contain prohibitive conditions set by the court to stop offenders engaging in a particular behaviour. They can also include rehabilitative positive requirements, such as attending an anger management course, to help to tackle the root cause of offending.
I mentioned that the existing ASB powers do not always go far enough. Breach of a respect order, in contrast to the power it replaces, will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. That is not the case for the current civil injunction, which may include a power of arrest only in certain circumstances, where it is specified by the court or where there has been the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm. I have heard from one local authority of a civil injunction that was breached over 100 times, with the police unable to take quick action to stop breaches because they had to reapply to the courts to arrest the offender. That is not acceptable and the respect order will fix it.
As a criminal offence, breach of a respect order will be heard in the criminal courts. This will allow judges to issue a wider range of sentences—including community orders, fines and up to two years’ imprisonment—than they can currently for civil injunctions. This is an important change. Community sentences enable judges to make ASB offenders repay, often visibly, their debt to their community.
I assure the Committee that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the orders are used appropriately. These are not unilateral powers for the police and local authorities; the terms of an order must be agreed by the courts. For a respect order to be issued, two tests must be met. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in ASB. ASB is defined as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”.
That is a well-established definition. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing a respect order is just and convenient—again, an established test for the courts.
As a further safeguard, we are introducing a new requirement for relevant authorities to carry out a risk assessment checklist prior to applying for a respect order. This will help to ensure proportionate use. We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales. More details on the pilots and their location will be provided in due course. New part A1 of the 2014 Act, inserted by clause 1, also makes provision for interim respect orders, for the variation and discharge of orders, and for special measures for witnesses in proceedings—for example, to enable them to give evidence from behind a screen.
Amendment 31 would reduce the age at which an offender can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, outlined. As I have indicated, the respect order is intended as a powerful deterrent for addressing the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB. Unlike the equivalent current power—the civil injunction—breach of a respect order is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, and the Government do not believe that it is right to criminalise children unnecessarily, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce respect orders for adults only. However, we know that in some cases tough measures, including behavioural orders, can be useful for dealing with younger offenders.
I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be consequences for the actions that cause distress and harm to local communities if they are committed by, for example, a 16-year-old. Stakeholders have told us that the current civil injunction can be a very useful tool for this cohort. It enables youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders, but without resulting in criminalisation. That is why we have retained that element of the existing civil injunction and renamed it the youth injunction. This will enable youth courts to continue to make orders against younger offenders—aged 10, when criminal responsibility kicks in, to 18—where the court deems it necessary. I am content that this provision covers the need for powers to deal with youth ASB. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 1, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 33 would impose a financial penalty on those who receive multiple respect orders. This is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that our justice system is taken seriously.
A respect order is not a punishment; it is an opportunity. It gives individuals a chance to correct their behaviour and change course before more serious consequences arise, but what happens when someone repeatedly ignores that chance? What message do we send if the courts impose an order only for it to be disregarded time and again, with no further repercussions? The amendment would ensure that those who continue to defy the law will face meaningful consequences.
Antisocial behaviour has real victims. It disrupts neighbourhoods, damages businesses and makes people feel unsafe in their own communities. We cannot allow repeat offenders to believe they can break these orders without consequence. A fine is a clear, tangible penalty that reinforces the message that respect orders must be obeyed. We already have fines in place for many other public order offences. They are nothing new. The amendment would bring respect orders in line with other legal measures, ensuring that persistent offenders face escalating consequences.
Crucially, funds from the fines could be reinvested in tackling the very issues that led to the order in the first place, helping communities affected by antisocial behaviour. This is a common-sense amendment. It would give our justice system the tools that it needs to properly enforce respect orders.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that without this amendment the power of a respect order would be greatly diminished? As we have seen with antisocial behaviour orders and convictions for relatively minor offences, repeat offending is the problem. Without the weight of this amendment sitting behind respect orders, they are sufficiently diminished in value as a stand-alone.
Matt Vickers
We saw what happened with ASBOs: people started wearing them as a badge of honour. This amendment could strengthen respect orders, providing real sanctions and consequences for people who fail to engage with what is on offer and with the opportunity to change their behaviour. It is the right thing to do not only by the people who commit offences and need setting in a new direction but for the communities who suffer at their hands. Those communities want to see that there are real consequences for them, and that such people do not think that they are above the law and can get away with anything. It is entirely right to strengthen respect orders further.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that breaches of respect orders will result in a criminal offence that is triable either way is enough of a deterrent? The consequences of breaches will be much greater than they are now.
Matt Vickers
We need to give the justice system and agencies all the powers that they can have, because at the end of the day, it is their discretion that will determine which of these things are applied. If someone breaches an order more than once, and they are subject to several respect orders, which is what the amendment relates to, there should be a stepladder of consequences. We should give the agencies and the Ministry of Justice all the tools and powers that they can use to deter people from committing another offence or indeed being subject to yet another respect order.
This is a common-sense amendment. It gives our justice system the tools that it needs to enforce respect orders properly, protects communities from persistent offenders and upholds the principle that the law must be respected.
Dame Diana Johnson
Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.
Harriet Cross
Respect orders are indeed meant to be preventive, and everyone on the Committee wants them to work, but part of prevention is deterrence. Knowing that it will hit them in their pocket if they get a respect order is a huge deterrent for people who otherwise, as the shadow Minister said, wear these things as a badge of honour. It is not that people will receive multiple respect orders at the same time; they may receive them sequentially. They may have had one in the past, but it has lapsed or they have served it—whatever word is used—and then, down the line, they get another one and then another. A fine would ensure that respect orders have a direct financial impact on them, to prevent them from getting into a cycle of receiving one after another.
Dame Diana Johnson
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems. Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour.
Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces.
As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities. Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. As we know, a small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. It is right that we put these ladders in place for the communities out there who are frustrated because they do not think the system has consequences for the same young people who are offending again and again, and creating lots of havoc on our streets. We would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 32 sets out proposed penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order, with a prison sentence of up to five years. It would strengthen the enforcement of respect orders by introducing clear and proportionate penalties.
The Chair
Order. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but we are meant to be discussing amendment 30. The shadow Minister mentioned amendment 32, which we will vote on later. I just want to make sure he is speaking to the right amendment.
Matt Vickers
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to the end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The 2014 definition of antisocial behaviour, as outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides a crucial framework for tackling the real, everyday issues that affect communities across the country. It recognises that antisocial behaviour is about not just criminal activity but the negative impact that certain behaviours have on the lives of ordinary people. By encompassing actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, the definition offers a broad, flexible approach that allows authorities to respond effectively to a wide range of disruptive activities.
The definition also strikes a vital balance between protecting individual freedoms and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the wider community. It does not overreach, but rather targets conduct that directly harms or threatens public peace, whether it be noise disturbances, vandalism or other forms of nuisance. That makes it a vital tool for local police forces, housing authorities and community groups to act swiftly and proportionately. Rather than offering an overtly wide-ranging definition, it draws a clear connection between antisocial behaviour and housing-related issues. The definition acknowledges the complex nature of the problems. It ensures that disruptive behaviour in homes, whether public or private, is tackled with the same urgency as antisocial behaviour and actions in public spaces.
Dame Diana Johnson
Amendment 30 would expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders, which is currently drafted as behaviour
“that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
The amendment seeks to include housing-related definitions of antisocial behaviour, including causing “nuisance or annoyance”, as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The test for nuisance and annoyance is a lower level of behaviour than that causing harassment, alarm or distress. That is appropriate in a housing context where a victim cannot easily escape from ASB that is occurring in the area where they live. We know that ASB can have devastating consequences in such situations, undermining the victim’s safety and security in their home. That is why we have retained the test for the new housing injunction in clause 2.
The respect order goes further than the civil injunction, as I have set out, in making a breach a criminal offence and enabling a wider range of sentencing options. It is appropriate that the legal test should be behaviour that is causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. It is also important to be mindful that the respect order sits alongside a suite of powers available to the police and local authorities to tackle ASB, which are designed to apply to the different scenarios and harm types that the amendment aims to capture. I hope I have assured the shadow Minister of our reasoning in setting the bar for a respect order at the level of harassment, alarm or distress, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response, but I would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 34 would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable. This is a crucial measure that can play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit of the provision is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards.
David Burton-Sampson
On that point, does the shadow Minister not believe that everybody has the right to decent housing?
Matt Vickers
I do. At the moment there are huge challenges around housing. People who live in social housing want to live next to someone who treats them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is fair on the people who might be their neighbours and fair on the other people in that list. There is a list for a reason, and the people who misbehave should feel the consequences of doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As a constituency Member of Parliament, the shadow Minister will have handled cases where people want their neighbours to move because of the neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. Would he be willing to tell his constituents that those neighbours cannot move because they are at the bottom of the list?
Matt Vickers
Well, I will give the Ministers the reasons for it. We are talking more broadly about the powers and sanctions given to help us to tackle antisocial people who create havoc on some estates and cause absolute uproar. No one wants such people to move in next to them. Does the Minister want the empty house next door to be occupied by someone who is committing antisocial behaviour and failing to comply with the responsibility of being a civilised member of society?
Matt Vickers
They are not going to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding citizens who do the right thing. That is what the queue is about, and there is a queue because there is not space.
Matt Vickers
We are saying that they will not get ahead of others. They will join the back of the queue; they will be put down the list. The people who behave, who are responsible, who are fair, and who play by the rules will carry on in their place while others are moved down the list for misbehaving.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The shadow Minister talks about the victims of antisocial behaviour and the offenders. I completely agree with his desire to provide an incentive for those are offending, but offenders often live with their families and children, who are often equally the victims of the antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that to punish offenders’ children and partners in a way that makes their housing situation more precarious and denies them a good home and an aspirational move to a better area, is an inappropriate punishment for an individual and becomes, effectively, a group punishment?
Matt Vickers
In my part of the world, the antisocial behaviour is more often wreaked by young people. Parents should be responsible for those young people, and there should be consequences so that people help their families to fall in line and behave. I think this is the right thing to do. Those on a housing list who play by the rules should carry on, while those who misbehave, who do not play by the rules and cause absolute hell for other people, should be pushed to the bottom of the list. I stand by that.
Luke Taylor
I am not sure that the shadow Minister understands the severity of the difficulties that families find themselves in. I have a certain sympathy with wanting to sound like there is a serious consequence for families and individuals who are breaching orders, but this amendment is an extreme measure that would lead to misery for whole families. It seems an overreaction and an extreme punishment for a whole family to suffer in that circumstance.
Matt Vickers
There are decisions to make about the extremity of the consequences and sanctions, but there is a choice. Is it about the victims who suffer sleepless nights and all this havoc, whose windows have gone through, who are abused and are petrified to live in their own home, or are we on the side of the families who wreak this behaviour and the young people who terrorise others? There is a choice there.
Joe Robertson
Government Members’ interventions suggest that they may have misread and misunderstood the amendment. They seem to think it means that someone with a respect order would be removed from the housing list. That is not what the amendment says; it is about prioritisation within the waiting list. These waiting lists are based on a set of a criteria that lead to a prioritisation. It seems to me uncontroversial—although it is possible to disagree with it, of course—to add another criterion to compiling a housing waiting list: does someone have a respect order? The amendment is not a mandatory provision. It states:
“A respect order may have the effect of moving any application”
down the list. The provision is discretionary, which addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. It may be that an overriding need of the family would mean that the power would not be used. There is nothing mandatory about this. It is entirely consistent with how waiting lists are compiled.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The fact that housing authorities are made a relevant authority by the Bill is really powerful. We should give all these agencies—the housing associations, the police and the justice system—all the tools, the carrots and the sticks, that they need to manage and induce the correct behaviour. This measure would do that.
Jess Phillips
How does the shadow Minister not see that, if my neighbour is an absolute nightmare who engages in antisocial behaviour, I would not report them or want them to get a respect order if I thought that would make it less likely that they could move? I would want them to move, so I would not want them to be at the bottom of the social housing waiting list.
Matt Vickers
We have some really good people working in housing authorities across the country who will use all the powers we give them in a meaningful, proportionate and sensible way to get the best possible outcomes for their tenants and communities. This power would be one string on that bow. As we have said, using it would not be mandatory; it would be an option available to them.
I am glad that the Government have said that housing authorities should be a relevant authority that should be able to bring forward orders, including respect orders. That is a really powerful thing, and we should give them all the powers they need and let them get on with the job that they are qualified to do—working hard to deliver for those communities.
Dr Sullivan
To take a slightly different tack, does the shadow Minister recognise that some landlords, social landlords and councils evict tenants who exhibit the kind of antisocial behaviour he describes, which is an absolute travesty and a blight on some communities, but that if they get a respect order and these people are placed at the bottom of the list, they will not be able to be evicted. That will hamper some of our councils from moving tenants on and addressing the various issues he has raised.
Matt Vickers
As I have said, this is not a mandatory measure. It is something that housing authorities and local enforcement agencies would be able to use at their discretion, looking at all of the facts surrounding the case, to try to get the best possible outcome for communities and tenants, many of whom are suffering sleepless nights and are miserable in their own home as a result of the behaviour of some awful people. It is right that there are consequences for these people and that we empower the agencies to deal with them as they see fit.
Jess Phillips
Have any particular social housing providers or local authorities requested the amendment from the shadow Minister?
Matt Vickers
As yet, they have not—I do not know. The Minister is very good at these questions, is she not? She does not like the “name a business” questions, but I suppose we can play it both ways. The reality is that I speak to housing associations that are deeply frustrated about their lack of powers and ability to tackle some of these issues. We would give them and other agencies this power as an option; its use would not be mandatory or stipulated. It is a very sensible thing to do. We should support and empower the authorities and agencies in every way we can.
Jess Phillips
The shadow Minister is right; I am very good at those questions. He made a good point about how we need to trust the experts, and I wondered where this amendment had come from if the experts are not the ones calling for it. I have tabled a lot of Opposition amendments in my time, and I was usually working with a team of experts.
Matt Vickers
How many housing authorities did we invite to the evidence session?
Matt Vickers
We did not invite any to the evidence session. I think the amendment would be welcomed, but I am sure we will hear from the relevant agencies and authorities in due course.
Jess Phillips
When tabling amendments to Government Bills in opposition, I never relied only on evidence given in evidence sessions. I believe the shadow Minister has an email address where those people could have lobbied him—it happens to us all the time. Have any housing or antisocial behaviour experts got in touch with him and said this is an appropriate action?
Matt Vickers
I am sure they will be in touch and can ask them that question, but I think empowering these organisations in this way is really powerful and will really help them to deal with some of the horrific antisocial behaviour their tenants are subjected to.
Harriet Cross
On this amendment and amendment 31, on reducing the age threshold to 16, we heard from the experts and people who gave evidence that we should reduce it to 16 because that is where most of the criminality of the antisocial behaviour comes from. By that same argument, because we are not hearing from housing authorities or experts does not necessarily mean that this is not a good amendment.
Matt Vickers
Some of the real experts in this Bill are the people on housing lists, feeling that they are waiting to get a house while others are getting ahead of them in the queue. This is an essential measure.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I have listened intently to the remarks, and I must say it is astounding to hear the shadow Minister suddenly become a champion for social housing. The problems due to antisocial behaviour in my constituency are, first, that families are stuck next to a problem family and cannot move because the Conservative party sold off so much council housing in my constituency and, crucially, did not replace it with new council housing stock; and secondly, my housing associations do not have enough resources from the local police, because the Conservative party slashed police numbers.
Matt Vickers
Police numbers are at a record level. There are more police on the streets of the UK than ever before. There is more funding going into the police than ever before. We toughened up sentencing for some of the worst offences. I am sure the hon. Member has lots of views on social housing, but in terms of this amendment, I think the right thing to do is to empower the agencies and ensure that some of the frustrated people in his constituency who want to move house can move ahead of those committing antisocial behaviour.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I will just draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one of my other former roles was as a tenancy enforcement caseworker for a social housing company. I can assure the Committee that I would not be asking for this amendment. I think it would have a detrimental effect, and would actually cause more antisocial behaviour further down the line.
Matt Vickers
I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.
The amendment is a crucial measure that could play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible, and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards. When someone is found to have caused disruption or engaged in antisocial behaviour that harms others, placing them at the bottom of the waiting list for social housing serves as a tangible consequence of their actions. It encourages personal responsibility and reinforces the idea that those who choose to respect the rules and the people around them should be rewarded, while those who engage in disruptive behaviour should face appropriate consequences.
Moreover, this approach supports the integrity of the social housing system. Social housing is in high demand, and it is vital that we prioritise those who are not only in need, but demonstrate a commitment to being good tenants and positive members of the community. By introducing this measure, we would ensure that social housing was allocated in a manner that rewards responsible behaviour, thus safeguarding the quality of life for everyone in the community. Importantly, it would allow local authorities to manage the housing waiting list in a way that aligns with the broader objectives of social housing policy, promoting both fairness and the values that underpin our society. It is a sensible, measured approach that encourages respect for others and the community as a whole.
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning.
We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home. They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority.
I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.
Luke Taylor
To pick up the point on the root cause of antisocial behaviour, does the right hon. Lady agree that being in unsuitable housing, and then being trapped in unsuitable housing through a measure like this, may well make antisocial behaviour even worse, leading to further reactions and disruption within communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept.
We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that we provoked a bit of passion and got people engaged in the debate. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
As we have talked at length about the respect orders, I will not say anything further at this stage.
Matt Vickers
It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities in proposed new section B1 of the 2014 Act, particularly when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour, which continues to plague many residents in housing communities. Registered housing providers, including housing associations and local authority landlords, serve as the backbone of the social housing sector, ensuring that tenants have access to safe, stable and well-managed homes. Their role extends beyond simply providing houses; they are legally and morally responsible for fostering strong, liveable communities where residents feel secure and supported. As designated authorities with specific legal powers, these providers are uniquely positioned to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on. This responsibility is crucial in preventing communities from becoming blighted by persistent nuisance and intimidation or criminal activity.
Rather than leaving tenants to endure these issues alone, or to rely solely on already overstretched police and council services, housing providers have the tools to intervene directly, whether through tenancy enforcement, mediation or legal action. By taking a proactive stance against antisocial behaviour, registered housing providers help maintain the quality of life for all residents, ensuring that social housing remains a place not just to live, but to thrive. Their ability to act swiftly and decisively is vital in upholding community standards and reinforcing the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to live in a safe and respectful environment.
Response times can still lag, and not all providers have the resources or the will to tackle complex cases effectively. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour often face a daunting process: logging multiple complaints, gathering evidence and navigating bureaucracy. How will the Government ensure that all housing providers have the capacity to utilise these powers effectively?
The Environment Agency is listed as a relevant authority with the power to issue a respect order. Could the Minister clarify the specific role that the agency will play in enforcing these orders? Under what circumstances would the Environment Agency be expected to exercise this power, and what specific outcomes do the Government seek to achieve by including it? Could the Minister provide a concrete example of how the Environment Agency might use a respect order in practice? Proposed new section C1 of the 2014 Act sets out that the respect order
“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where the respondent normally lives”
and that a condition the court considers is that
“the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or…there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”
What implications could that have for respondents who have been issued with an order? Where will they live? What role will their local authority have in supporting them?
David Taylor
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In Hemel Hempstead, antisocial behaviour is regularly at the top of my inbox. Ahead of joining the Committee, I carried out information-gathering exercises in addition to my regular surgery and casework, including a recent public event alongside the police and the Police Federation. I found that hundreds of people are unable to go about their daily lives because of antisocial behaviour. A rot was allowed to set in by the Conservatives when they were in government, with crime doubling in my constituency between 2014 and 2024. A retired police officer locally has pinpointed the fact that the cuts that were made to neighbourhood policing during that time is having a massive and detrimental effect on policing in Hemel Hempstead.
I have spoken before about a family who live locally who have suffered from terrible antisocial behaviour, and I will refer to them again today. This family, who have a boy, have been harassed for more than two years, including verbal abuse, trespassing, damage to property and their neighbours generally causing them distress. What is really disturbing is that the child does not feel comfortable going out to play in their local neighbourhood because of the impact that the abuse from those terrible neighbours has had on his mental health. The family have recorded these incidents on their Ring doorbell device, and the recordings have been submitted to the police and local authority. However, despite multiple reports to the council, the police and other agencies, no resolution has been reached. They are currently unable to move away to another area because of the lack of social housing, which I mentioned earlier. It is not okay that the son is fearful of going outside, and that the anxiety is so bad that he cannot sleep alone. I have met the family and have had to console them as they have broken down in tears owing to the stress. It is unacceptable.
In reading the Bill, I have been applying a simple test: what will each clause mean for Hemel Hempstead residents? I strongly believe that clause 1 will have a considerable impact on residents. Why? First, unlike previous measures, respect orders come with criminal penalties for breaches, which paves the way for the police to immediately act when individuals are in breach. It will help to ensure that residents such as the family I referenced will not suffer prolonged harm from persistent offenders, and that authorities have the tools to act decisively.
Secondly, residents have informed me that when antisocial behaviour injunctions and other parts of enforcement measures have been applied, they were too slow to be enforced, so lacked any real deterrent. In contrast, the measures introduced in clause 1 simplify the legal framework, providing enforceable rules that local authorities, housing providers and the police can use. Further, one of the problems reported to me by the family is that the neighbours’ drug use is the driver of much of the antisocial behaviour.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is very kind. In my constituency, ASB is conducted by people who have alcohol and drug problems. Does he agree that the fact that the new respect orders have positive requirements, such as attending drug or alcohol support services, will get to the root of the problem?
David Taylor
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have spoken about members of my family who have suffered drug abuse; sometimes that did lead to antisocial behaviour and they suffered the penalties of it. It is right that we need to look at dealing with some of the root causes.
This issue is a scourge in my community and it has been for many years. I recall another couple who came up to me at a community event just before Christmas. They said that they lived on a completely normal street but then, at one point, a house on the street turned into a drug den, where there was a drug dealer. They told me, “It is striking. This is just a normal street and all of a sudden, we are dealing with people coming at all hours of the day, leaving drugs and paraphernalia all over the place. There is swearing and antisocial behaviour.” A neighbour went out to confront the people coming to buy the drugs, and one of them turned on the neighbour and drove at him with their vehicle—that is how bad some of these offences are.
I therefore welcome that the new respect orders allow courts to impose restrictions and positive obligations, which my hon. Friend referenced. As a result, offenders can be required not just to stop harmful behaviour but to engage in programmes of drug rehabilitation, which I hope will get to the root cause of this problem.
The overarching issue with antisocial behaviour in Hemel Hempstead is that it has been ignored in the past, with one resident telling me that authorities do not really think it is that bad. The new respect orders send a strong message that such behaviour will have real consequences, therefore restoring trust in policing and the justice system. I have made the case several times that Hemel would very much welcome being included in the pilot for the new respect orders, should the Bill pass, and I reiterate that today. I thank the Government for taking seriously the plight of antisocial behaviour, as demonstrated by clause 1, and I hope that we can work together to ensure that it is enforceable as quickly as possible, and to bring about real change for residents across our country and in my Hemel Hempstead.
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. As members of the Committee have said, antisocial behaviour really is one of the scourges of our communities right across the country. Although it might often be described as low-level, compared with more serious crimes, it is deleterious to community cohesion, and it clearly has significant effects on people’s mental health.
I was looking at some YouGov statistics earlier: 28% of people in the country at some point felt unsafe where they live because of antisocial behaviour; 14% said that antisocial behaviour where they live has affected their mental health; and 15% have said that they have been scared at some points to visit their local shop. That is reflected in my surgeries, as I am sure it is in the surgeries of Members across the House.
Last month, I went to Eton town council. Eton is a prosperous place, as people might recognise, but even for Eton as a town, there were two primary issues that the council brought up with me relating to antisocial behaviour. That included from the night-time economy, whether that is shop windows being smashed, indecent exposure or laughing gas. We also have problems with BB guns being shot at swans—indeed, youths not too far in the past killed a swan. What we find, in many instances, is that an incredibly small number of individuals create havoc for a whole town, so I welcome clause 1 and the powers that respect orders will give the authorities. The clause can give them more teeth to get at the repeat offenders who are causing this kind of damage across our town.
I know it is not necessarily appropriate at this point for me to speak to the amendments, but I would like to say two sentences on amendment 31, if you would allow me, Mr Pritchard. I think this behaviour is often done by 16 to 17-year-olds, so it is a bit of a shame that that has been put to one side.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking advice, so may I kindly offer it? Please stick to the particular issue in the clause.
Jack Rankin
On the more substantive point, there were some missed opportunities to toughen the clause up a bit. The perception of respect orders is that they could become ASBO mark 2. I recognise that they are a little tougher than past measures, but there is bit of a missed opportunity.
David Burton-Sampson
As other Members have said, antisocial behaviour is out of control. Around 35% of respondents to the crime survey for England and Wales in March 2024 said they had witnessed or experienced antisocial behaviour in their area. We must remember that a significant amount of antisocial behaviour goes unreported, so the reports that we get are probably a misrepresentation of the level of antisocial behaviour that is actually out there. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that it is an indictment of the previous Government’s record that action was not taken on this issue, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Windsor welcomes the respect orders and can see that this Government are starting to take control of antisocial behaviour.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Like every Member in the Committee and across the House, my constituency struggles with antisocial behaviour, particularly but not exclusively in towns. Individual instances of antisocial behaviour often are referred to—perhaps correctly—as low-level crime, but the problem is the combination of those activities, the hyper-prolific nature of antisocial behaviour, whereby a few individuals cause a huge amount of the problems, and the knock-on effect for the rest of the people living in those neighbourhoods, who are law-abiding citizens trying to go about their daily lives. Antisocial behaviour also feeds into the fear of crime, which is relevant—not just the level of crime, but fear of it among a given population.
In the town of Sandown in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, antisocial behaviour feeds into a major regeneration issue, as the state of some key buildings, which have been left to deteriorate, attracts antisocial behaviour. That is not to say that there is any justification for criminality or antisocial behaviour, but it would be false to assume that the physical environment in which people live does not have an effect, particularly on younger people who may be struggling to fill their time, as they look for work or further education opportunities.
I welcome the new respect orders, in line with most of the things that have been said today, because of the beefing up of the current rules and the attempt to add weight to the deterrent available to law enforcement. However, as the measure includes criminal sanctions for an offence that can be tried and heard in the Crown court, the Government have to be alive to the potential—indeed, the almost certainty—that it will increase the workload of the courts. It is all very well for Members such as the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh to talk about the previous Government not having done enough, but to assume that words, even good words, in a Bill will solve everything on their own, I suggest might be a little simplistic. The Government will have to do more.
David Taylor
The hon. Member is being a bit unfair. The Bill is not being presented in isolation. As a Government, we are also recruiting 13,000 new officers, a starting point to getting neighbourhood policing back in a fit and proper state. Does he not welcome that move?
Matt Vickers
Recruiting 13,000 police officers sounds really good, but about a third of them will be special constables and about a third redeployed from other parts of the police force. When someone rings 999, because they want that emergency response service, they may wait even longer, because the response police officers will have been moved into neighbourhoods.
Matt Vickers
The Government are redeploying them, so they are taking them from somewhere. We would welcome any information about where the Government will or will not redeploy them from, but this is important. The Government cannot say 13,000 more are arriving, when it is about 3,000 more.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. To respond to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, we can debate policing all he likes—indeed, the previous Government increased police numbers—but the point I was making was about the courts, because we are talking about increasing the burden on Crown courts. I am not making a point against him or the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh, but I am sure they would both agree that the Government have to address the pressure on the court system. I support this provision, but although Bills such as this are well intended, they will add pressure to the prison population and the court systems if the Government do not make further provision.
Matt Bishop
Perhaps the hon. Member can offer some thoughts as to why we might have huge backlogs in the court system.
Joe Robertson
I am slightly surprised that such an uncontroversial point is being met with such incredulity and that I am being asked to provide the hon. Member’s Government with solutions. He has to get used to the fact that his Government are in power now. They will have to find their own solutions.
Matt Vickers
I would never seek to defend anything that any Government have ever done—people do get things wrong—but the previous Government were right to toughen up sentences for the worst and most violent offences. It was right that we put people away for longer. It was right that we did not release people during the pandemic, or at anything like the levels that some other countries did. It was right, therefore, that the Government had the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era. It is right that we put those people in prison. It is right that in another Bill Committee I have been saying for weeks that foreign national offenders should be removed without the need for a 12-month prison sentence in the meantime. We have got to where we have got to for lots of reasons. I think tougher sentences were a good thing, and that it was right that we did not release people early and that we built more prison places than have been built since the Victorian era.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. We need to warm up, because it is cold, so people bobbing up and down is fantastic, but may we stick to what we are supposed to be debating, however excitable the other things make us?
Joe Robertson
Thank you for that advice, Mr Pritchard. I am too generous in giving way, but the shadow Minister put it much better than I could myself.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. To clarify, I did not ask for solutions; our Government have the solutions.
Joe Robertson
I think we will have to leave the debate about which Government have the solutions to another day, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I repeat my point, which I do not think is controversial and would hope is accepted: the Labour party will have to pay extra attention to court backlogs when provisions such as this, which I support, are introduced.
Dame Diana Johnson
We have had a wide-ranging debate on clause 1, moving from the specifics of the respect order through to policing numbers. I am very proud that we will have 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs by the end of this Parliament. I have to say that the idea that there was the largest prison-building scheme since the Victorian times under the previous Conservative Government is utter bunkum—they built 500 places. That is why we are in the position we are in at the moment. I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a new Member, but those of us who have been in the House a little while remember what 14 years of Conservative government have delivered for this country. That is why this Government are determined to start to deal with some of the problems around antisocial behaviour, crime and the fact that we do not have enough prison places.
Getting back to clause 1 of this important Bill, I am pleased that there is acceptance across the House of the need for respect orders and a general welcoming of them. The shadow Minister asked some very detailed questions, which I will come to in a moment, but I want to comment on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The horrific case in his constituency of a child who cannot go out to play and the stress that antisocial behaviour puts on the family is clearly totally unacceptable. That is why respect orders will play their part, along with the housing civil injunctions, in tackling some of these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton made an important point about individuals with addiction problems and how it is absolutely vital that respect orders deal with the requirements to get to grips with antisocial behaviour and whether an addiction issue is driving it. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Windsor talked about the antisocial behaviour that occurs even in some of the more prosperous areas of the country—he talked about Eton. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh made an important point about prevention, the work around youth hubs and the prevention partnerships that we will be introducing.
At the very start of the debate on the amendments, the shadow Minister asked whether respect orders would interfere with individuals’ work commitments. I can reassure him that it will be for the court, which is judicially independent, to set the conditions of a respect order. Courts are well practised in navigating types of circumstances, such as where a person works or lives, and we expect the courts to consider those issues when making respect orders. For example, a court is unlikely to prevent the respondent from entering a defined area if they need to access it to attend work.
The shadow Minister asked how the Environment Agency will use respect orders. The Environment Agency can play a role, particularly where an environmental ASB offence is committed, for example vandalism of local open spaces or parks, or things like that.
The shadow Minister was particularly concerned about without-notice applications for respect orders. We know that courts can issue without-notice respect orders when the matter is urgent—the shadow Minister referred to that. Courts are familiar with doing that and have done it for a very long time with civil injunctions.
The shadow Minister also asked about the burden of proof required for the courts to approve a respect order and how much police will work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect. The court must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has engaged in, or threatened to engage in, conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The court must also be satisfied that it is just and convenient to grant the respect order for the purposes of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. That is the same legal test as for the current injunction.
I was pleased that the shadow Minister welcomed the fact that housing bodies will be able to seek orders from the courts; I think that is welcome across the House. Police are just one of the number of agencies, including councils and housing authorities, that can apply for respect orders. It is expected that a multi-agency approach will be taken when applying for respect orders. We are also introducing mandatory checklists for the relevant agency to complete prior to applying for a respect order, to ensure proportionate use.
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 10, line 36, leave out
“Schedule 1 amends Part 1 of”
and insert
“Part 1 of Schedule 1 amends”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 and 8.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 24 to 28.
Schedule 1.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 2 introduces schedule 1, which makes consequential amendments to part 1 of the 2014 Act to provide for youth and housing injunctions. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to retain the existing civil injunction for cases that will not be covered by the respect order, namely those of offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. Although in some cases powers are needed to address the behaviour of younger offenders, the Government do not want to unnecessarily criminalise children, as I said previously. Practitioners have told us that the existing injunction can be a useful power for addressing persistent ASB committed by under-18s and so it will remain in place for that cohort, operating in the same way as the civil injunction, although it will be renamed the “youth injunction”.
Harriet Cross
For clarity, will the threshold at which a youth injunction is given be at the same sort of level as for a respect order, but with the age element added in, or will there be a different threshold for the level of antisocial behaviour, or the sort of disruption caused?
Dame Diana Johnson
We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now.
I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of
“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”
in a housing context—as previously discussed. Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context.
Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act. Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction.
We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.
Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 2 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide for the granting of youth and housing injunctions; I thank the Minister for outlining that. Clause 2 will limit powers under section 1 of the 2014 Act so that injunctions can be granted only to individuals aged 10 to 17. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind that age restriction?
The clause also introduces a new type of injunction for adults aged 18 and over, specifically aimed at preventing behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance related to housing. It shifts the approach to tackling community-specific antisocial conduct, rather than broader public disorder. How do the Government justify treating adult antisocial behaviour differently depending on whether it is housing-related or not? Is the Minister concerned that limiting injunctions for housing-related issues to adults might create enforcement gaps? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local authorities and housing providers have the necessary resources to enforce housing-related injunctions effectively? Realising that Ministers are keen to hear exactly who wants what measures in the Bill, can she name any housing associations who specifically asked for this measure?
Dame Diana Johnson
A number of the points that the shadow Minister has raised were discussed earlier. We have set out very clearly why we believe that the respect orders should only apply to adults, because we are talking about the most serious antisocial behaviour. We believe that children and young people up to the age of 18 should not be caught by a respect order because of the criminalisation attached—if it is breached, they can be immediately arrested and brought before the criminal courts. That is why we have retained what is working well with the civil injunctions and renamed them the youth injunction and the housing injunction. On the latter, again, we heard very passionate contributions about how antisocial behaviour where people live, next to their home, and caused by neighbours, can absolutely destroy people’s lives, causing stress, distress and mental health issues, as well as sometimes breaking up families. That is why the threshold for the housing injunction is lower than that for the respect order, but for the threshold we are using what is already on the statute books and I think it is right that it is at that lower level.
On the question about whether any social housing authority has supported the plans for housing injunctions, there is a genuine view in the sector that this is a positive step to enable them to deal with the antisocial behaviour that housing authorities often have to deal with. I am very conscious that the antisocial behaviour charity Resolve has much welcomed the work that has gone into the Bill on both the respect orders and the civil injunctions. Resolve would say that there is a general view that this is a positive way forward. The approach that seems sensible is using what works well now, and keeping that—as I have said, that is why the housing and youth injunctions are doing that and are adapting it—while bringing in this tougher response through the respect order, and getting that on the statute books to deal with people who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour, to try to get to the root cause of what they are doing. I hope that deals with the questions posed by the shadow Minister.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 2, page 10, line 37, leave out “(injunctions)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains consequential amendments of other Acts.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Amendments made: 24, in schedule 1, page 148, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
“Part 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
1 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as set out in this Part.”
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 28, makes the existing text of Schedule 1 become Part 1 of that Schedule.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 150, line 4, leave out from “for” to end of line 5 and insert
“‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.”
This amendment ensures that the definition in section 2(1)(b) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications for youth injunctions as well as applications for housing injunctions.
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 152, line 37, at end insert—
“(za) in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’;”.
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert—
“19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—
‘“anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.
19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.
(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—
‘“anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.”
This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert—
“Part 2
Consequential amendments of other Acts
Housing Act 1985
21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)—
(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;
(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.
(3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute—
‘“relevant proceedings” means—
(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,
(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or
(c) proceedings for contempt of court;
“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.
22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute—
‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;
an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’
Housing Act 1988
23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows.
(2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)—
(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;
(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.
(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute—
‘“relevant proceedings” means—
(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,
(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or
(c) proceedings for contempt of court;
“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.
Police Reform Act 2002
24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’
Localism Act 2011
25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’—
(a) after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’;
(b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3
Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 3 provides for extensions to the maximum timeframes for dispersal directions and closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I will address each of these in turn.
The clause extends the maximum period for which a dispersal order can be in place from 48 to 72 hours and introduces a mandatory review at 48 hours. We know that the dispersal power is an effective tool that police can use in a range of situations to move on individuals who are committing, or who are likely to commit, antisocial behaviour. Despite that, feedback from police and from police and crime commissioners has highlighted operational challenges in implementing this power.
Under current legislation, the police can issue a dispersal order to require a person to leave an area for a maximum of only 48 hours. That makes no allowance or and allows no extensions for weekends or bank holidays, when incidents of antisocial behaviour are often high. The 48-hour window also allows little time for relevant authorities to identify the root causes of the issue in order to implement longer-term solutions. Extending the timeframe of the dispersal power to up to 72 hours will ensure that police can effectively cover these problem periods, such as bank holidays. It will also give local agencies more time to come together to develop long-term solutions to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross
Although I completely agree with the need to extend the power, why was 72 hours chosen? Was there work or analysis behind that figure?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.
Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.
Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.
Matt Vickers
Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.
Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.
In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?
The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.
The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.
The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.
The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is slightly warmer in the room this afternoon. The point I was making before the break was that a number of the measures in this Bill were in the Criminal Justice Bill, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, set out in his questioning of me, but that a clause included in that Bill to lower the age at which someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10 has not been taken forward.
I started my remarks by saying that we had carefully considered the merits of each of the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis to see which ones we wanted to take forward according to this Government’s priorities and where we believed there was a clear operational benefit. I set out before lunch that we did not believe that it was appropriate to lower the age for community protection notices from 16 to 10, because breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and the Government do not wish to risk criminalising children unnecessarily.
The other measure in the Criminal Justice Bill that it is worth reflecting on was to extend the use of public spaces protection orders to the police, allowing a greater number of agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. The responses to the consultation that the Government at the time carried out were mixed, with a significant proportion of respondents opposed to extending PSPO powers to police. PSPOs are generally focused on lower-level environmental ASB in public places, meaning that local authorities are better suited to issue PSPOs than the police are. Given all the pressures we know the police are under and having regard to police resources, we believe that local authorities are still best placed to carry out the administrative elements of PSPOs. That is why that measure is not included in this Bill.
The provisions in clause 3, as we have already said, were in the Criminal Justice Bill and I think they should garner support across the House in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Fixed penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 4 serves two purposes. First, it extends the remit of the community safety accreditation scheme, to enable accredited officers to issue fixed penalty notices to tackle antisocial behaviour. Secondly, it increases the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500 for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. Under the community safety accreditation scheme, a chief constable may delegate a range of powers usually reserved for the police to accredited officers involved in a community safety or traffic management role. That includes issuing fixed penalty notices for specific offences. This clause expands the list of offences to allow officers to issue fines for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices as well.
I can assure hon. Members that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. To be awarded accredited status an organisation must satisfy strict criteria, and the scheme itself is accredited only through approval from a chief constable. Also, accredited officers must, rightly, undergo strict vetting and be appropriately trained in use of their powers. By expanding the range of agencies that can tackle antisocial behaviour, we will free up valuable police resources to tackle other antisocial issues and other types of crime.
The second element of the clause increases the upper limit for fines issued for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices from £100 to £500. Public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are issued where antisocial behaviour has a detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life. It is right that anyone breaching the orders is met with a proportionate punishment. The current £100 upper limit does not always carry enough weight to stop people committing further antisocial behaviour. We expect that the threat of an increased fine will act as a stronger deterrent, and in many cases will be enough to prevent reoffending.
We are clear that, although we are increasing the upper limit, the police, local authorities and CSAS officers must ensure that fines are reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the behaviour. The statutory guidance will, of course, be updated to reflect that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 4 increases the maximum fixed penalty notice that can be issued for a breach of a community protection notice or public spaces protection order from £100 to £500. In 2023 the previous Conservative Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen the powers available to address antisocial behaviour. That included a proposal to increase the upper limit of fixed penalty notices to £500. Following the consultation, the Government included a proposal in their 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill to increase the value of fixed penalty notices to £500.
How will the Government ensure that public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are not used disproportionately to penalise minor or everyday behaviours? Can the Minister speak further on what oversight mechanisms and approved standards will be in place to regulate the activities of private enforcement officers issuing fines under those orders? How will the Government respond to concerns that private enforcement officers have financial incentives to issue excessive fines, and what action can be taken if that occurs? How will the Government balance the need for public order with concerns that PSPOs and CPNs might unfairly target individuals for minor infractions? What mechanisms are in place to review or challenge PSPOs and CPNs if they are deemed unfair or excessive, and how will the Government ensure that the measures are not used as revenue-generating tools, rather than as genuine deterrents against antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I set out in my opening remarks, there will be statutory guidance on the use of the powers. I hope that provides some reassurance about how they will be used. I also set out the role of the chief constable in authorising officers and extending the powers to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities perhaps using pay-by-commission contractors to issue fixed penalty notices and how there will not be abuse of that. To make it clear, it is for local authorities to determine how to operate the powers granted to them in legislation. Only the upper limit is being increased. Local agencies that issue fixed penalty notices can of course issue fines of less than £500 if appropriate, and it is expected that the fines issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case. Contracting enforcement to third parties is now a common arrangement and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. As I said at the outset, there will also be statutory guidance.
On the other safeguards and preventing the misuse of PSPOs, it is clear from the legislation that the local authority must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider a PSPO appropriate and that the legal test is met. Before making a PSPO, the council must consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. Before making, varying, extending or discharging a PSPO, the council must carry out the necessary publicity and notification in accordance with section 72(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That includes publishing the text of a proposed order or variation and publishing the proposal for an extension or variation. Anyone who lives in, regularly works in or visits the area may apply to the High Court to question the validity of a PSPO.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Closure of premises by registered social housing provider
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 5 and schedule 2 provide registered social housing providers with the power to issue closure notices and closure orders, to enable them to quickly close premises that they own or manage that are being used, or are likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. Despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from antisocial behaviour, the current legislation does not allow them to use closure powers. Rather, they must contact the police or local authority to issue a closure notice and subsequently apply to the courts for a closure order on their behalf. This clause changes that.
Registered social housing providers will now be able to issue a closure notice and apply for a closure order themselves, meaning that the power can be used more quickly to disrupt antisocial behaviour, in turn freeing up police and local authority time. We of course understand that closing a premises is a serious action, so it is important to note that registered social housing providers are regulated bodies, subject to criteria set out in statute before they can become registered, and that they must meet the regulatory standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Having those safeguards is necessary to ensure that these powers are used responsibly by providers.
Matt Vickers
Clause 5 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage that are associated with nuisance and disorder. We very much welcome this measure—it is right that we empower social housing providers to deal with disorder in order to support and protect tenants.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased that the shadow Minister agrees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 6 and schedule 3 provide a new duty for police and crime commissioners to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review in the police force area, and provides a route for victims to request a further review where they are unsatisfied with an ASB case review outcome. As well as tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour, we know that much more must be done to help victims. The ASB case review is an important tool that gives victims of persistent antisocial behaviour the ability to request a formal case review.
As we know from the Victims’ Commissioner’s report, “Still living a nightmare”, published 6 September 2024, the case review is not always used as effectively as it could be to support victims. We want to improve resolutions for victims involved in these case reviews. Of course we hope that a resolution is found before there is a need for a case review, but it is important that this option is available, as there is currently no formal process for victims to appeal the outcome of a case review, even in situations where the review has not addressed the antisocial behaviour that the person is complaining about and experiencing.
This clause gives victims the right to request a further review of their antisocial behaviour case review by the police and crime commissioner where they are dissatisfied with the original outcome. It also allows victims to request a review by the PCC where the relevant agencies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial antisocial behaviour case review. In turn, the PCC will be able to override original case review recommendations and make new ones where they consider further action could have been taken.
Although local agencies will not be mandated to implement the recommendations, they will need to demonstrate consideration. To ensure that victims know where to access the right support, PCCs will also be required to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review and the process for when victims are dissatisfied with the outcome.
Matt Vickers
Clause 6 and schedule 3 enable local policing bodies—police and crime commissioners and their equivalents—to conduct reviews into how authorities in their area have handled reports of antisocial behaviour. Someone could request a local policing body case review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of an antisocial behaviour case review conducted by another agency, such as the local police force.
Proposed new section 104A of the 2014 Act requires local policing bodies to publish data on LPB case reviews, including the number of applications, the number of reviews conducted and their outcomes. As the Minister knows, it does not specify how that data should be published, which raises questions about delivering an inconsistent approach to publishing data on ASB case reviews. Without a clear specification on publication methods, does the Minister believe there is a risk that data could be inaccessible or difficult to compare across different areas? Will there be any independent oversight or monitoring to ensure that local policing bodies comply with the new transparency requirements?
Clause 6 also modifies schedule 4 of the 2014 Act to mandate that local policing bodies actively raise awareness of antisocial behaviour case reviews within their respective police areas. How does the Minister foresee each force undertaking that work, and will she work with forces to ensure that good and accessible awareness is not a postcode lottery?
Dame Diana Johnson
We have obviously been working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners on how these provisions will work, to ensure that PCCs feel comfortable about what is expected of them and that there is clear guidance in place on what the provisions will actually mean. The legislation clearly sets out minimum requirements that PCCs must comply with when they are setting up and carrying out the PCC case review, including, as I have said, publicising the complaints procedure, consulting with key agencies and setting up the process. We will continue to work with the APCC to develop guidance and best practice to support PCCs in making effective use of the PCC case review.
I fully understand that the data issue is a challenge. It is clear that most partners are collecting data on antisocial behaviour. There are sometimes issues with being able to share that data effectively, and information on how data can be used by all the partners who need to see it will certainly be part of the guidance.
On the whole, however, I think this provision, which supports victims by giving them the right to a further review through the PCC, is the correct approach. I know that the Victims’ Commissioner is keen to see more use of the review procedure. One of her big complaints in the document she produced last year was that the procedure is not well known. We certainly want PCCs to ensure that information about the further right of appeal is given out as clearly as possible to the victims of antisocial behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 7
Provision of information about anti-social behaviour to Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
The clause introduces a power for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring key local agencies to report information about antisocial behaviour to the Government. Regulations will be laid at a later date to specify the information that agencies must provide.
Information held by central Government on antisocial behaviour is, in some areas, limited. Despite non-police agencies, such as local authorities and housing providers, playing a crucial role in the response to antisocial behaviour, there are currently no requirements for those agencies to share information about ASB with the Government. That has resulted in a significant evidence gap in the national picture of antisocial behaviour, particularly around how many reports of antisocial behaviour are made to non-police agencies, how they are responded to, and how many antisocial behaviour case reviews they conduct.
Clause 7 takes steps to address the gap by requiring agencies to report that information to the Government. As it is a new duty, I reassure the Committee that we have considered possible new burdens on local agencies, and we have been engaging with local authorities and social housing providers to understand what information they already hold, and the impact that the requirement may have on them. We will ensure that any new requirements will be reasonable and proportionate. By collecting the information, we will be in a much better place: able to get a more accurate and granular picture of antisocial behaviour incidents across England and Wales, as well as the interventions used to tackle it. That, in turn, will help to inform future local and national activity so that we can better tackle antisocial behaviour.
Matt Vickers
Clause 7 grants the Secretary of State the authority to determine through secondary legislation the specific data on antisocial behaviour that local agencies are required to provide to the Government. At its core, the provision is about understanding the problem better. It allows the Government to demand reports on antisocial behaviour incidents, details of how authorities respond, and records of case reviews where communities hold those responses to account.
The idea is simple: if we know more about graffiti spoiling our streets, noise disrupting people’s sleep or disorder plaguing our neighbourhoods, we can do more. The Secretary of State could use that data to spot trends, allocate resources or craft policies that hit the mark. But let us not view the clause through rose-tinted glasses; it raises serious questions we cannot ignore. How much information will be demanded and how often? Will small councils, already stretched thin, buckle under the weight of collecting, creating and analysing data? How much detail will they be asked to provide? Will it be every caller, incident log, or every follow-up? How often will it be—daily updates, weekly summaries or monthly deep-dives?
Police forces, especially in rural and underfunded areas, are already juggling tight budgets and rising demands. Could the burden of gathering, generating and sifting through antisocial behaviour data pull officers away from the streets where they are needed most? A Government armed with better information could target support where it is needed most—perhaps more officers in high-crime areas or funding for youth programmes to prevent trouble before it starts. I am interested in the Minister’s view on how this will be balanced.
Dame Diana Johnson
I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister said, and in my remarks I also indicated that we wanted to be proportionate in the information we will request. It is clear that tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government, and many of our partners, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the ASB sector, have called for better data on antisocial behaviour. Our engagement indicates that the majority of relevant agencies already have access to this data, but are not sharing it. That is the key point.
Requiring agencies to share that information with Government will enable the significant benefit of a national dataset on non-police ASB incidents and interventions, which will mean that we are then in a much better position to produce policy that fits with the issues that communities are facing up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Seizure of motor vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Seizure of motor vehicles: driving licence penalties—
“(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 59 (Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) A person who is convicted of repeat offences under subsection (6) will have their driving licence endorsed with penalty points up to and including the revocation of their driving licence.’”
This new clause would make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence.
New clause 36—Removal of prohibition on entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165A, after subsection (5)(c) insert—
‘(5A) In exercising their powers under subsection (5), a constable may enter a private dwelling house for the purposes of seizing an off-road bike’.
(3) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 59(7), at end insert ‘, except where the intention is to seize an off-road bike.’”
This new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is driven without a licence, uninsured, or being used illegally.
New clause 37—Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance—
“(1) The Road Traffic Accident Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165A, omit ‘within the period of 24 hours’.”
This new clause would remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance.
New clause 39—Duty to destroy seized off-road bikes—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165B(2), at end insert ‘;
(g) where the seized motor vehicle is an off-road bike, to ensure its destruction by the police’.
(3) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 60(2), at end insert ‘;
(g) where the seized motor vehicle is an off-road bike, to ensure its destruction by the police.’”
New clause 40—Registration of off-road bikes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes.
(2) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(i) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(ii) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a registration scheme for the resale off-road bikes.
Dame Diana Johnson
We all accept that antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, which is why the Government are undertaking this ambitious programme of work to tackle it, including the proposals that we have discussed in Committee today. The antisocial use of vehicles, such as e-scooters and off-road bikes, causes havoc in local communities. It is not, as it has perhaps been described in the past, low-level behaviour. It leaves law-abiding citizens feeling intimidated and unsafe in their town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods, and it happens across the country.
I fully understand the strength of feeling among the public and Members, and their desire for the Government to take swift action. We will treat antisocial driving as the blight on society that it is. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize offenders’ vehicles and dispose of them. Clearly, the Bill will strengthen the law so that vehicles being used antisocially can be seized by police immediately without the need to first provide a warning.
Matt Vickers
I rise to speak to clause 8 as well as new clauses 30 and 36, 37, 39 and 40, which were tabled by the Opposition. Clause 8 relates to the seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. It will omit section 59(4) and (5) of the Police Reform Act 2002, removing the requirement to first issue a warning prior to seizing a vehicle being used in an antisocial manner.
This issue is of particular concern to me, and many hon. Members across the House. The Opposition welcome this measure to enable police to remove bikes without warning when using this power. Off-road bikes, e-bikes and other non-road-legal bikes are a huge concern to local communities across the country. The issue has been raised time and again in this place, with increasing regularity, in Westminster Hall debates, parliamentary questions, and private Member’s Bills, which have shown the huge and increasing impact it has on communities in different parts of the country, represented by MPs of different political parties.
The antisocial use of motor vehicles is a growing concern across the UK. When vehicles are driven recklessly, dangerously or in a disruptive manner, they can cause significant harm—both physical and psychological—to individuals and the wider community. The consequences of such behaviour range from increased public fear and distress to serious injury, and even loss of life.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
This is about the impact on not just communities and individuals but on farmers, livestock and rural businesses. In many cases people are seeing their livelihoods disrupted and their livestock injured or, at worst, killed by these bikes. What are the shadow Minister’s views on the need to tackle that?
Matt Vickers
This huge problem has many different faces in many different communities. Sometimes the problem is antisocial behaviour, and sometimes it is outright crime. We should be doing more, in terms of sanctions, to get these bikes off the streets.
One of the most immediate and severe dangers posed by antisocial use of motor vehicles is the threat to public safety. Reckless driving, illegal street racing and the misuse of off-road vehicles in pedestrian areas create an environment where accidents are not just possible but inevitable. Instances of vehicles being driven at high speed through residential streets or public spaces increase the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to such risks. Parents often express concerns about their children’s safety when motorbikes or modified cars are recklessly raced through parks and playgrounds: areas that should be havens for relaxation and recreation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such antisocial behaviour is particularly intimidating because noise travels, creating the perception of vehicles going at speed and the fear of accidents? Even if there is no intent to cause antisocial behaviour or injury, the fact that reckless use of these vehicles can lead to accidents makes them menacing, particularly in the minds of older and more vulnerable people but also, frankly, for any resident in the vicinity.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a sliding scale. There are people who use these things to intimidate and cause fear: driving around with a balaclava on their head, making as much of a racket as possible, and driving as close to people as possible in what should be a normal residential street, where families should be able to grow up. There is also the other extreme, where green spaces are torn apart by people recklessly creating a lot of havoc. But my hon. Friend is right: this behaviour intimidates and causes fear even where there is no intention to do so.
Even in cases where reckless driving does not result in physical harm, the psychological impact on communities cannot be overestimated. The noise and unpredictability of vehicles, especially motorbikes and modified cars, being misused can create a climate of fear. Residents often report feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, deterred from using local parks or walking near roads where such behaviour is common. For many elderly individuals, loud and erratic vehicle activity can be particularly distressing. The sound of revving engines, screeching tyres and aggressive acceleration, especially at night, can cause severe anxiety, disrupting sleep patterns and diminishing overall quality of life for those affected.
Joe Robertson
It sounds as though my hon. Friend may have a greater problem with this sort of antisocial behaviour in his constituency, but that is not to say that, in constituencies such as mine where there is a problem, that problem will not get worse if these powers are not made available to the police. It is much harder to remove and stop a type of behaviour that has set in than to stop it ever happening in the first place. I hope he agrees that the powers will help all constituencies across the UK, regardless of the extent to which they are perceived to have a problem at the moment.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, the problem has spread. It started on estates; people may make assumptions about where it might have started. But it is now everywhere. Areas filled with old people, and normal, quiet and well-heeled streets are now being tortured by it. It is also enabling crime on a massive scale, including drugs, child exploitation, theft and offences against the person.
Balaclavas and the speed of the vehicles are being used to evade detection and capture, and the teenagers are sometimes actively goading law enforcement. We have heard some of the public debate about direct contact to take people off the bikes, and we have also seen the tragic consequences when young people lose their lives as a result. While I welcome the change, I feel that we need to go much further in order to grip the problem. We cannot wait for another person to lose their life, or indeed for yet more people in communities across the country to lose their quality of life.
The problem is continuing to grow month on month. If anyone thinks I am being over the top, they can think again, or they could speak to a couple of MPs whose constituencies are affected. The problem is growing on a huge scale. Over recent years and, particularly, recent months, it has increasingly spread across my constituency. The police have been innovative in their efforts to tackle the issue of off-road bikes. Some forces have deployed officers on off-road bikes; others have used drones and other technology to trace where bikes are being held. All forces use an intelligence-led response and the powers they have to safely seize bikes when they are not being ridden.
I have spoken to many police officers, in my locality and across the country, about the issue. All are frustrated by the challenges of trying to deal with the problem. One such officer is neighbourhood police sergeant Gary Cookland, from my local police force in Cleveland, who submitted written evidence to the Committee. Gary is an incredibly hard-working police officer, who spends a large amount of time dealing with antisocial behaviour and, in particular, off-road bikes.
Gary explains that tackling the bikes is a high priority for all the communities he serves. He describes the bikes’ role in criminal activities and the misery they cause for so many families. He says that many of the vehicles are not roadworthy and not registered vehicles. The vehicles are sold without any restrictions and are readily available to any person who wishes to purchase one; they do not even need a driving licence. That has caused an influx of dangerous imports, a high number of which are afflicting our streets. He urges the Government to amend the Bill to include some form of regulation, and to include the need to supply the name of the owner, as well as an address and driving licence, at the point of sale.
Gary explains the ridiculous situation in which some of the bikes seized by police are then resold by them and returned to the streets. He talks about the fact that in some cases, when vehicles are deemed roadworthy, they can be reclaimed by people without relevant documentation such as an accurate or up-to-date registration. He points out that section 59 recoveries do not currently need all of those documents to be in order—only proof of ownership and payment of recovery fees. Sergeant Cookland puts forward a number of suggestions to help tackle the issue, including restrictions on fuel stations selling to vehicles that are clearly illegal and driven by people without helmets or driving licences. He also talks about restricting the use of balaclavas, which is now at epidemic levels in many communities and cause huge fear among law-abiding citizens.
Gary very much welcomes the change being put forward by the Government, as do I, but we need to think about the scale of the impact it can have. The clause changes just one piece of legislation used to seize the vehicles, but in practice the police use different powers within existing legislation. In this case, we are amending section 59 of the Police Reform Act, but many seizures are made under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988—the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 revision, which I believe does not require notice or warning as it stands. It allows for the seizure of vehicles with no insurance. Obviously, many of the offending vehicles are not road legal anyway, so by default, they cannot be insured for use in public spaces. As I understand it, there are no records of what powers police forces are using to seize bikes, and to what scale. Therefore, it is difficult to determine with any confidence the scale of any impact the measure in the Bill will have. I am keen to hear from the Minister the size or scale of the impact that she anticipates it might have.
While it is a positive move, the provision is unlikely to have a sizeable impact on the problem. Therefore, informed by conversations with many on the frontline, I have tabled a number of new clauses on the subject in the hope that the Government might consider going further. I was certainly not afraid to question Ministers on this subject when my party was in office. I hope that my new clauses might be accepted as constructive suggestions to help solve what is a huge problem in so many areas across the country.
New clause 36 would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is being driven without a licence, uninsured or being used illegally. Bizarrely, police officers are not able to seize these bikes under either the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Police Reform Act 2002. A person can terrorise people, cause untold misery to local communities and use such a vehicle to evade law enforcement, but law enforcement cannot come into that person’s house and seize their off-road bike using existing powers. I hope people will see this as a logical measure; in fact, it was previously put forward by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a Labour Member.
New clause 37 would amend section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance. This is a simple change suggested by the neighbourhood police sergeant that could make a real and meaningful difference, helping those on the frontline to seize bikes with less restriction.
Harriet Cross
Earlier, we considered extending timelines from 48 hours to 72 hours to take in, for example, weekends and bank holidays. The new clause fits quite nicely with that, and would make sure that wherever we are in the week or year we are tackling this issue effectively.
Matt Vickers
Very much so. We can end up in a perverse situation where someone who has been seen riding one of these bikes just hides it for 24 hours, knowing that the police will have a scrap to go and recover it on that basis. At the time the provision was written, I do not think it would have been foreseen that this was where things would end. We did not write the Road Traffic Act with a view that we would need to seize bikes within 24 hours. It just was not a thing at the time. When that legislation was put forward, the problems with off-road bikes would never have even been considered. The new clause would bring the measure up to date and make it relevant to the challenges faced by modern policing. It would also prevent those who know the law from hiding a vehicle away for a period before returning to their illegal activity.
New clause 39 would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002 to create a duty to destroy seized off-road bikes. As frontline police officers have said, all too often they go to great lengths to seize these bikes, only to then see police forces sell them back on to the streets, often landing straight back into the hands of those from whom they were removed. Police forces use this as a form of revenue, but it is hugely damaging for the morale of many officers and hugely counterproductive in tackling the problem.
New clause 40 would invite the Secretary of State to issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes. It would consider the merits of requiring those selling off-road bikes to record the details of those buying them and verify that they have any relevant insurance. Schemes exist for the registration of farm plant equipment. Crikey, we even have to register the likes of Microsoft Windows and various apps. Why should we not look at the merits of registering the sale of these dangerous bikes, which, when misused, are now enabling crime and causing misery in our communities?
New clause 30 would amend the Police Reform Act and make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence. This is not only a matter of enforcement; it is a matter of public safety, community wellbeing and ensuring that those who repeatedly flout the law face appropriate consequences. For too long, communities across the country have suffered from the reckless and inconsiderate use of motor vehicles. Whether it is illegal street racing, off-road bikes terrorising neighbourhoods or aggressive driving that endangers pedestrians and cyclists, the misuse of vehicles is a persistent issue that affects both urban and rural areas. The current legal framework allows for vehicle seizure, but does not go far enough in deterring repeat offenders. By introducing driving licence penalties, we send a clear message that persistent antisocial behaviour involving motor vehicles will have lasting consequences.
This new clause will support our police forces, who often already struggle to tackle the volume of complaints regarding reckless vehicle use. It presents an additional tool to discourage repeat offenders without having to repeatedly seize vehicles, which is often a short-term fix. I think most Members in the room would agree with that a driver facing potential disqualification is less likely to engage in dangerous behaviour than one who simply risks losing a single vehicle.
I hope that the Minister might consider these measures before the Committee comes to vote on them later, and would welcome any reflection she might have on them. Are the Government considering any other measures to tackle the problem, and is any financial support being offered to forces to help them to make the best use of technology in this area?
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister on the menace that unauthorised, misused motorised vehicles cause to our society. Untaxed bikes are roaring through our housing estates. Just this weekend, I was taking my dog for a walk and three untaxed motorbikes were roaring up and down the road, where there were young children and families walking along. My dog got scared every time they went past.
These vehicles are a real menace. Illegal e-scooters whizz along the pavements. In Basildon, in south Essex, two young people were killed on an illegal e-scooter only recently. That is really sad: two young children had their lives ended on one of these illegal e-scooters. Modified electric bikes are also being dangerously driven on our roads. In my constituency, this is very much an urban problem, but the problem exists in different forms in rural areas. It affects all communities in one way or another.
There is also the issue of crime associated with illegal bikes and illegal e-scooters. The shadow Minister has lots of ideas on how to solve this problem, but during the last year of the Conservative Government, there were an average of 214 snatch thefts, often facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, every day on our streets in England and Wales. That was a 150% increase on the previous year. That shows the former Government’s massive disregard for law and order. The Conservative party now comes here with ideas for improvement, but we are actually taking action to stop this problem.
The fact that a warning is needed before these ridiculous illegal vehicles are seized creates an element of immunity for users—if they are going to get a warning, they will keep trying to push their luck—so I welcome the removal of that requirement. It is time to get tough in this area and give the police the powers they need to act promptly.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree that it is time to get serious about this issue. Will the hon. Member support our new clause that would give police the power to confiscate these vehicles from people’s houses?
David Burton-Sampson
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but the key is to get these vehicles as soon as they are spotted on the streets.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Where the community comes in is a game changer, because it is all about intelligence. What will make the difference in seizing these off-road bikes is the police working with our local authorities and communities.
David Burton-Sampson
Absolutely. I could not have said it better myself.
We need to get this provision into law as quickly as possible, as part of this whole raft of changes. The police need to be able to act promptly when they see these ridiculous vehicles causing so many problems on our roads and in our communities.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
These vehicles are also having a huge impact in Riverview and Coldharbour, in my community. The police have been doing some good work with drones to follow these people to their home addresses. With the change in the law to allow police to seize the vehicles straight away, does my hon. Friend think that such interventions could support the police and communities in cracking down on the problem?
David Burton-Sampson
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Over the past couple of weeks, Essex police has focused particularly on using similar techniques to drive down the use of illegal e-scooters.
It is time to get tough. We need to act promptly when we come across these perpetrators and get these vehicles off the road. I am pleased with the change to the law that will be made by clause 8.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
First, I express general support for the clause. I welcome the measures to combat this menace in our communities, which we have heard about in the room here today and also in the Chamber on Second Reading. We have not only the risk of the antisocial behaviour itself, but the enabled crime that it is linked to such as phone snatching and similar offences. Again, it is welcome to try to reduce those incidents where possible.
This weekend, I was in a discussion with a resident who talked about the impact of illegal off-road bikes in Overton Park in my constituency. They talked about their fear that if one of those vehicles hit their child—they are often not even full-sized off-road vehicles, but small, children’s off-road bikes—it could cause serious injury. There is a real fear among residents.
We also have an issue around illegal e-bikes being driven on our high streets, often in zones shared between pedestrians and cycles. Heavier, illegally modified bikes are used often by food delivery companies that absolve themselves of any responsibility because the bikers are all independent contractors or independent riders. The companies take no responsibility and have no interest in cracking down, so enforcement is left to the local police. They have problems spotting whether the vehicles are illegally modified and then there is the issue of police resources. Many of us sound like a broken record on this: the powers are all very well, but the challenge is actually having the resources in our neighbourhood policing units to enforce them.
I have a concern not only linked to the manpower required to police the bikes, but on some of the details and practicalities of the powers, so I would welcome further details from the Minister. Will there be any process of appeal for the individual if the bike or vehicle is taken away in the first instance without a warning? Would it just be down to a single officer who says a particular offence is antisocial? I have had people contact me with concerns because they have been stopped in a vehicle for fast acceleration or for driving in a particular way on a single occasion. They worry that under the powers granted in the Bill their vehicle could be immediately confiscated. They feel that the powers might be misused by individual police officers, so there is a concern over that process, and how the power given to a police officer can be used in a single instance.
Would vehicles be fully traced and tracked to see whether they are stolen? We should ensure that we do not crush or dispose of vehicles that can be returned to their owners. Would the powers be enforced on the owner alone? If a vehicle had been taken without permission or was being used without the knowledge of the owner, would there be a process to ensure that the vehicle was not used again without the understanding of the owner? The removal and disposal would seem to be an overreach in that circumstance.
On the timescale of disposal and how that would be done, I heard the concerns about the immediate re-selling of vehicles back to the wrong ’uns they were taken off in the first place. It is a valid concern. Will that disposal mean cubing it and putting it in the recycling, or does it mean selling it on? What constraints will be put on the police to deal with vehicles that are taken?
My understanding of the current guidance is that warnings are necessary only where repeated tickets are impractical. Can the Minister talk about where the existing description of “where impractical” is insufficient for police officers? In discussions with the police, I imagine that the phrase “where impractical” has been identified as problematic. Can we draw out a bit why it is causing issues?
There is a question around whether the powers would apply to problem areas, particularly in central London where high-powered, very expensive vehicles have been reported as causing noise nuisance and alarm to local residents. We have all read stories of vehicles being imported from the middle east by foreign owners, and these vehicles causing noise nuisance in central London, in the Kensington and Chelsea areas. Would the powers allow those vehicles, which are often very high-value vehicles, to be taken without a warning in the first place? I think there is an appetite from many for that to be the case, but there would be concerns over the sheer value of those vehicles and how the police would deal with that.
I find some of the new clauses interesting and there is actually a lot of sense in many of them. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why each power they provide for is either undesirable or already covered in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
It is good to hear that there is a universal view—at least among those who have spoken—about the intimidating nature of driving motor vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. I am pleased that the Bill does not require that to be the intent of the use of the vehicle; if there is flagrant disregard for others, that behaviour is captured here and could and should lead to the seizing of that vehicle. There are clearly issues with existing law that are improved here, not least seizing a vehicle without warning. Plainly, people who use vehicles in this way are likely to be quite clever at avoiding the system taking their vehicle when they are warned that they are being watched and have been seen. Removing the necessity for a warning is welcome.
There are a number of issues that are not dealt with in the Bill. I will not repeat the words of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, but I wish to highlight the inability to seize a vehicle once it has entered the home. Again, the sorts of people who are using vehicles in this way will be quite clever about protecting their property when they see the police coming. Can the Minster help with this idea of the home; if a bike is removed into a garage, for example, can it still be seized? Does it matter if that garage is integral to the home or separate from it? Any loopholes that can be closed for those driving their vehicles in this way to avoid having them seized would be welcome.
The shadow Minister and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, both referred to the idea of a vehicle being seized and then resold—and possibly sold back to the perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour in the first place. That is plainly ridiculous. Crushing these vehicles, with all the caveats around ensuring that the vehicle belongs to the person who had been using it in that way—that they were not joyriding, leading to somebody else’s property getting crushed—is a sensible way forward.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I want to make a brief point about the noise nuisance of vehicles. We are rightly focusing a lot of remarks on how dangerous these vehicles are for ordinary citizens trying to go about their day, but to reinforce a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about modified exhausts, I will share mine and my constituents’ annoyance at these things. It is unreasonable that someone in their own house with their windows closed should have to listen to a vehicle going by. Someone going for a walk on a nice sunny day has to listen to this antisocial behaviour, which has no benefit at all, as far as I can tell, in terms of the quality of the vehicle.
Harriet Cross
If one way to help reduce the likelihood that someone in their private house with the windows closed would not have to listen to these vehicles—as no one should—was to have powers to seize them from inside someone’s house, would the hon. Member support that?
David Taylor
I am not convinced. I am primarily talking about big vehicles such as SUVs and other cars, which are not often inside garages—not many people have garages these days.
I really hope the Bill enables, and gives confidence to, the police to take more action against modified exhausts because, unfortunately, they do not always prioritise this particular nuisance.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister and other members of the Committee have set out clearly how concerned we are about the antisocial use of vehicles and the real problems they are causing communities all around the country. I think we can all identify with the menace they cause in our parks, on our pavements and in our streets and neighbourhoods. Certainly, as the nights get lighter, the problem seems to get worse. In Orchard Park in my constituency, we seem to be plagued by mini motos causing noise nuisance and intimidating local people, making the situation really unpleasant for people trying to enjoy the good weather as we move into spring and summer. I fully appreciate all of that, and as the shadow Minister pointed out, there are also real issues about the way vehicles are used for crime—drugs, theft and everything else.
It is absolutely right to say that the police have been as innovative as they can be in the use of drones or off-road bikes. The police may, where appropriate, pursue motorbikes and off-road bikes being ridden in an antisocial manner and may employ tactical options to bring the vehicles to a stop. The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on roads policing and police pursuits provides guidance for police taking part in such pursuits. However, the APP makes it clear that the pursuit should be necessary, proportionate and balanced against the threat, risk and harm of the pursuit to the person being pursued, the officers involved and others who may be affected.
Luke Taylor
Has the Minister considered additional funding and support for the police? The suggestion is that those actions—the pursuit and physical taking of the vehicle—would require more resource and training, and that is a point that I will make repeatedly. Does the Minister agree that that is important and that support will be provided?
Dame Diana Johnson
An additional £1.2 billion is going into policing—from today, actually—for this financial year. So there is a clear commitment from the Government to fund police forces. I understand that the police face many challenges, but financial support is certainly going in. The work of the College of Policing in setting out best practice—that authorised professional practice—is really important in giving police officers confidence to take the steps they need to in order to deal with antisocial behaviour.
The other point I wanted to make is that work is being undertaken by the Home Office and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to progress research and development on a novel technology solution to safely stop e-bikes and enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.
Matt Vickers
Of course we want more resources—we will not play politics and debate that—but using direct contact to get someone off one of these bikes comes with huge consequences for the police officers who take that risk. There are parts of the country where young people have lost their lives—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about “wrong ‘uns” riding these bikes, but they are often somebody’s son—so this comes with a huge risk and a huge life cost. Of course police officers want to bring that to an end, but the solution is usually an intelligence-led response that means that bikes are picked up when they are parked in a garage or—well, not parked in somebody’s house.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister makes an important point. This must be about intelligence-led policing, but there will be circumstances in which police officers find themselves having to pursue an individual. There is clear guidance from the College of Policing on how police officers should do that. It should be necessary, proportionate and balanced. Of course, we want to keep police officers safe and make sure that the person being pursued is not at risk of being injured or losing their life, as in the very sad cases the shadow Minister mentioned.
It is worth pointing out the powers available to the police to tackle the misuse of off-road bikes and other vehicles. The Police Reform Act 2002 provides the police with the power to seize vehicles that are driven carelessly or inconsiderately on-road or without authorisation off-road, and in a manner causing, or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance. Section 59 of the Act enables the police to put a stop to this dangerous and antisocial behaviour. The seizure depends not on prosecution for, or proof of, these offences, but only on reasonable belief as to their commission.
Under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police are also empowered to seize vehicles driven without insurance or a driving licence. Under section 165B, they have the power to make regulations regarding the disposal of seized vehicles. The police can also deal with antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, such as off-road bikes racing around estates or illegally driving across public open spaces, in the same way as they deal with any other antisocial behaviour.
A number of questions were asked, but I want to deal first with the issue of when a vehicle is seized and what happens to the owner. When the police seize a vehicle, they will not immediately crush it. They need to spend time finding the registered owner in case the vehicle was stolen. Before reclaiming a vehicle, the individual must prove that they are the legal owner of the vehicle. They may be asked to prove that they have valid insurance and a driving licence. We will be consulting in the spring on proposals to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly.
I will now turn to the constructive suggestions in the shadow Minister’s new clauses. New clause 30 would render antisocial drivers who fail to stop liable to penalty points on their licence for repeat offending. It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for a driver using a vehicle carelessly or antisocially to fail to stop when instructed to do so by a police officer. Offenders are liable for fines of up to £1,000, which we believe is a more effective deterrent. The police may also, where appropriate, issue penalty points for careless or inconsiderate driving or speeding, so antisocial drivers may already be liable for points. I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that the behaviour of antisocial drivers should not be tolerated. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize their vehicles, and we will consider how to make it easier for seized vehicles to be disposed of, which we believe will be even more of a deterrent.
New clause 36 would permit the police to enter private dwellings to seize an off-road bike where it has been used antisocially or without licence. As I have already set out, the Government are keen to make it as easy as possible for the police to take these bikes off our streets. We do not, however, believe that giving the police powers to enter a private dwelling for the purpose of seizing an off-road bike is necessary or proportionate. The bar for entry to private dwellings is, rightly, extremely high. Police currently have a range of specific powers to seize vehicles being used antisocially or without a licence or insurance, and can already enter property, including gardens, garages and sheds, which is where they are most likely to be store, to seize them.
The police also have a general power of entry, search and seizure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That means that when police are lawfully on the premises, they may seize any item reasonably believed to be evidence of any offence, where it is necessary to do so. That would include, for example, off-road bikes believed to have been used in crimes such as robbery. Magistrates may grant warrants to search for evidence in relation to indictable offences, and police may in some circumstances enter properties without a warrant being required—for example, to arrest someone for an indictable offence.
Later on in our deliberations, we will come to clause 93, which sets out the right of the police to enter a premises containing electronically tagged stolen goods when the GPS shows that that equipment—or whatever it is, and that includes a bike—with that electronic tag on it is in there. Police officers will be able to search without a warrant, on the basis that that is a stolen item. That is something to think about when we debate clause 93.
Having said all that, we believe that the measures we have brought forward to make it easier for the police to seize off-road bikes at the point of offending, as a number of my hon. Friends have discussed, are a better deterrent. That is intended to suppress the offending immediately, before it escalates, and to deliver swift justice.
New clause 37 would remove the 24-hour limit within which the police may seize an unlicensed or uninsured vehicle. Currently, the police may seize a vehicle that is being driven without a licence or insurance, either at the roadside or within 24 hours of being satisfied that the vehicle is unlicensed or uninsured. The point of that seizure power for uninsured vehicles is to instantly prevent the uninsured driver from driving. There is a separate penalty for the offence: if the vehicle is still uninsured after 24 hours, the police can seize the vehicle and give the driver a second uninsured driving penalty.
New clause 39 would expressly permit the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ensure that the police destroy any off-road bikes they have seized. Currently, the police may dispose of seized vehicles after holding them for a certain period, but they are not required to destroy any off-road bikes. We are considering how we can make changes to the secondary legislation to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly—to reduce reoffending and prevent those vehicles from ending up back in the hands of those who should not have them. However, we do not believe that we should restrict the ability of the police to dispose of off-road bikes as they see fit. They may, for example, auction them off to recover costs, which would not be possible under the terms of new clause 39.
Finally, new clause 40 would require the Government to consult on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes, requiring sellers to record the details of buyers and to verify that they hold valid insurance. Of course, antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes is completely unacceptable and, as I have set out, we are taking strong measures to deal with this menace. The police already have a suite of powers to deal with those who do not use their off-road bikes responsibly. It is an offence to use an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, or off-road without the permission of the landowner, and the police can immediately seize vehicles being used in that way.
As the Committee will know, the police are operationally independent, and the Government cannot instruct them to take action in particular cases of antisocial vehicle use, but I hope I have been able to set out, and to reassure the shadow Minister, how seriously we take this unacceptable behaviour and how much we value the role the police have in tackling it.
I would also like to recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee and outside about this behaviour and the disruptive effect it has on communities. I recently met the Roads Minister and we agreed our commitment to a cross-Government approach to tackling this unacceptable antisocial use of vehicles and of course to improving road safety. I am really keen to take forward considerations about how we can go further, outside of the scope of this Bill.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 35 in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on flytipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 18, line 5, at end insert—
“(5A) Within a month of any guidance, or revised guidance, issued under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must ensure that a motion is tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the guidance.”.
Clause stand part.
New clause 24—Points on driving licence for fly tipping—
“(1) The Environmental Protection Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33, subsection 8(a) at end insert—
‘and endorse their driving record with 3 penalty points;’.”
This new clause would add penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence.
Matt Vickers
The clause seeks to address a scourge that affects all communities across Britain and all our constituencies. Fly-tipping is an inherent problem, and I welcome any provisions to help tackle this costly and environmentally damaging issue.
The clause is a step in seeking to combat this growing issue. It has been a persistent problem in the UK, causing environmental damage, undermining public health and placing an economic burden on local authorities, which are responsible for cleaning up illegal waste. Empowering local councils to take more immediate and decisive action against fly-tipping is key to making enforcement more efficient and consistent. With more resources, authority and tools, councils will be better equipped to prevent fly-tipping, address existing problems and ensure that offenders are held accountable.
Although fly-tipping is largely seen as a waste disposal issue, it is also an environmental one. Waste that is illegally dumped has far-reaching effects on local ecosystems, water sources and wildlife. Existing laws do not always capture the broader environmental harm caused by fly-tipping. Previous Governments have looked to make progress on tackling fly-tipping by increasing the fines and sanctions available to combat it.
In the evidence session, there was some criticism of the measure in the Bill, with the suggestion that it was just guidance and could be considered patronising by some councils. Although I understand that view, doing more to ensure that local authorities are aware of their responsibilities and the powers available to them by providing meaningful guidance can only be helpful.
I am sure we can all agree that fly-tipping is a scourge and a blight on our communities. Many of us will have some fantastic litter-picking groups in our constituencies —I know I do. I thoroughly enjoy getting out with the Thornaby litter pickers, who do an amazing job. It is great to see people coming together to better their communities, but it is a sad reality that more and more groups of selfless volunteers need to form because people are sick of the endless amounts of rubbish strewn in our streets and by our roads.
Britain has a long-established record of trying to tackle fly-tipping and litter. Keep Britain Tidy was set up as a result of a conference of 26 organisations in 1955. Today, it continues that hard and important work.
Fly-tipping is a significant financial burden on local councils. The annual cost of clearing up illegally dumped waste in the UK is estimated to be more than £50 million. That includes the direct costs of waste removal, disposal fees and the administrative costs involved in managing fly-tipping incidents. According to data for 2019-20 published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in that year alone local authorities in England spent approximately £11 million on clearing up over 1 million reported fly-tipping incidents. That money could be better spent on frontline services such as filling potholes, or on providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others. The Opposition have tabled amendment 35, which I hope the Committee will support, to complement and strengthen the Bill. Fly-tipping, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is the illegal disposal of waste on land or in public spaces, but some types of fly-tipping are defined less clearly. For example, small-scale littering, such as dumping a few bags of rubbish on a roadside or on private property, may not always be captured by existing laws.
Amendment 35 seeks to define some of the guidance that the Bill will require the Secretary of State to set. The Opposition believe it is important that the heart of the legislation’s approach should be make the person responsible for fly-tipping liable for the costs of cleaning up, rather than the landowner. The amendment would require that to be a feature of the guidance, making it loud and clear to all our local authorities that such powers are available to them.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that this might be important for rural communities, and particularly for farmers? Farmers in my constituency tell me that they struggle with being responsible for clearing up after other people’s fly-tipping, for which they have to use their own time and resources.
Matt Vickers
I completely agree. Many farmers in my patch would say exactly the same. When rubbish is dumped in a park or local authority area, it gets cleaned up, at huge cost to the taxpayer, but when it is dumped beyond the farm gate, or in a field owned by a farmer—or anyone else with any scale of land in a rural area—too often they have to pick up the cost, and all the consequences beyond cost.
Currently, fly-tipping offences typically result in a fine and, in some cases, a criminal record. However, repeat offenders are often penalised in a way that does not sufficiently discourage further violations. The fines can sometimes be seen as a mere cost of doing business, especially by individuals or companies who repeatedly dump waste, often for profit. The Opposition’s new clause 24 proposes adding penalty points to the driving licence of any individual convicted of a fly-tipping offence. It is a significant proposal that aims to deter people from illegally dumping waste by linking that to driving penalties, which would impact an individual’s driving record, and potentially their ability to drive. Our new clause shows that we are serious about tackling the issue of fly-tipping. By linking fly-tipping to driving penalties, the new clause would create an additional layer of consequence for those involved in illegal dumping. People with driving licences may be more cautious if they know that their ability to drive could be impacted.
I note amendment 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but it is unclear what that amendment would achieve. I am concerned that it would not complement clause 9, and would be counterproductive. The requirement for parliamentary approval of guidance within a month could lead to delays in the implementation of important policies or updates, particularly if there are disagreements or procedural delays in Parliament. I would not want anything to impede, by overreach, our ability to tackle and curtail fly-tipping.
Luke Taylor
We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I am glad to see clause 9 because, as several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have mentioned, fly-tipping is a particular problem in many rural constituencies. In Berkshire, where the majority of my seat lies, there were 7,700 instances of fly-tipping in 2023-24. We are a small county, but that is 20 reports a day. In the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, where most of my constituency is, the figure rose to 1,902 in the past year, which is up 52% on the year before, when we had 1,249. The issue is of greater prevalence than in the past, and I welcome the Government including clauses to try to make a difference.
We have also seen a change in the nature of fly-tipping. Two or three years ago, in Berkshire, most of it was on council land, in car parks or parks, in the hope that the local authority might pick it up, but now we see what might be called smaller-scale highways incidents, with the dumping of waste on public roads, pavements or grass verges. In the past year, 778 of the 900 instances in the royal borough consisted of what were described as a car boot or less. To me, that indicates a prevalence of individuals or waste from small-scale dumpsters, perhaps from small businesses—perhaps we are seeing fewer large-scale illegal waste operations. I put that very much in the bucket of antisocial behaviour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, that is a particular concern to local farmers. I will quote Colin Rayner, a constituent of mine and a farmer. I will first declare an interest, that Colin is a personal friend and the president of Windsor Conservatives, but he is well placed and I pick him for his expertise rather than my relationship with him. To quote the Maidenhead Advertiser, he said that
“the family farms have incidents of fly-tipping every day, from a bag of garden waste to lorry loads of waste…‘We have made our farms into medieval forts to try to reduce large loads of waste been tipped on the farms’.”
He has also spoken to me about the cost to his business of extra security and, indeed, of the cleaning up.
That last point is why I welcome the amendment moved by the Opposition to make the cost sit with the offender and not with the landowner. It is not appropriate that Mr Rayner and his companies pay; the person who is offending should. Also, new clause 24 on driving licences, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, seems to be a way to get at just such small-scale operations. That might be something that is tangible and real to a small business or an individual doing the fly-tipping. I absolutely welcome the amendment and the new clause.
When the guidance comes forward, I encourage the Minister to be as tough as possible—which I think is her intent, but perhaps she will speak to that in her wind-up. We should use the power to search and seize vehicles in the case of persistent offenders. I want to see serious fixed penalty notices for people caught fly-tipping, and I want extra powers of investigation and prosecution. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.
Dr Sullivan
Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities—I think we all share that view. The misconception is that fly-tipping is small scale, but it is committed by criminals and unscrupulous small waste-removal businesses that can have links to organised crime. It is a huge money-making machine. It is an issue that local authorities have had to grapple with for many decades. In many cases, it has been worsened by environmental measures and stronger recycling and waste collection rules.
I pay tribute and give credit to my local authority, Gravesham borough council. In 2019, it set out a bold antisocial behaviour strategy, which looked at fly-tipping at its source and at its heart. In 2020, the council set up the environment enforcement team, which has used a variety of different techniques to prevent, to tackle, to educate and to prosecute. Since then, 386 community protection warnings, 50 fly-tipping fines and 12 duty-of-care fines for waste carriage breaches have been issued, as well as 39 cases resulting in successful prosecutions in court.
The council and its media team work closely with Kent police to raise awareness and deter potential offenders. I would like to put on record my thanks to its team. The council was able to take that action because of past legislation, including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. I could go on, but there are now many legislative options for local authorities to tackle the issue and take people to court. Where fines are handed out, there is an issue with the backlog in the courts, but I know that the Minister is looking at streamlining some of those court issues, which arose from the neglect of the last 14 years.
Harriet Cross
I welcome the intention of the Bill to tighten up regulations for fly-tipping, which is such a blight in our communities up and down the country. I know that the Bill refers directly to England, but up in my constituency of Gordan and Buchan, in Aberdeenshire, it is just as prevalent. It is a growing concern across the country. As the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has both an environmental and antisocial impact, but the impact on community cohesion is particularly important. It can be seen as a gateway, as once there are instances of fly-tipping, they escalate and escalate.
There is an example from my constituency that always sticks in my mind. There are quite a few mountain passes in and around my area. One day, I drove over one and there was a bath at the top. The next time I drove past, there was a bath and a sofa, and then it was a bath, a sofa and a bike. Eventually, I could have probably furnished a house and garden after just a few trips up and over this pass. That is how this escalates. Once incidents start happening, people think, “It’s there already, so I’ll just keep adding to it.” We must crack down on it.
We must also recognise the impact on landowners and farmers. It cannot be fair that someone who farms land has to deal with fly-tipping, on top of everything else. This is not to conflate two issues, but we have heard a lot in the last year about how farming is low on profits, at about 1%. We cannot expect farmers to bear the burden of having to put some of that money into clearing up someone else’s mess. That is why I welcome amendment 35, which seeks to ensure that, where and when perpetrators of fly-tipping are identified, they are made to pay the cost of clearing it up. That is not a burden that anyone other than the perpetrator should have to face.
Will the Minister say what conversations have been had with the devolved nations? If people are putting waste into the back of a van and driving it around, the borders are no barriers, whether they are on one side of the Scottish or Welsh border or the other. This is a cross-border issue. What implication might this have, and what conversations has the Minister had with her Scottish and Welsh counterparts to tackle this across the board?
Joe Robertson
A lot of good comments have been made on this provision in the Bill, which I do not wish to repeat. I note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan about consistency with the devolved nations and how people seeking to dump do not recognise borders. I can probably assure her that fly-tippers on the Isle of Wight are not likely to reach her constituency in order to perpetrate their dumping, but if the law in Scotland is not equally as strong, who knows what lengths people will go to? I want to reinforce that point, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this amendment to make the guidance as strong as possible around the fly-tipper being the payer. Clearly, we are all victims of fly-tipping, but the landowner in particular is a victim. It is completely unacceptable to any right-minded individual that the landowner should pay the costs of being a victim of a crime. I urge the Government to accept amendment 35 and make the guidance as strong as possible on that point.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been an interesting debate. We have been up mountain passes, we have been on the Isle of Wight and we have had the shadow Minister out with the Thornaby litter pickers. This debate has been very visual. Fly-tipping is a really serious crime that is blighting communities. It is placing a huge burden on taxpayers and businesses, and it harms the environment. Unfortunately, it is all too common, with local councils reporting 1.15 million incidents in 2023-24.
I want to address the issue of what we are doing in rural areas and on private land. Through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and local authorities to share good practice on tackling fly-tipping on private land. Where there is sufficient evidence, councils can prosecute fly-tippers.
In relation to the issue of serious and organised waste crime, the Environment Agency hosts the joint unit for waste crime, which is a multi-agency taskforce that brings together His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. Since 2020, the joint unit for waste crime has worked with over 130 partner organisations, and led or attended 324 multi-agency days of action resulting in 177 associated arrests.
On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, we have engaged closely with the devolved Government across the Bill. As she will know, fly-tipping is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so accordingly this provision applies only in England.
We want to see consistent and effective enforcement action at the centre of local efforts to combat the issue of fly-tipping. That will ensure not only that those who dump rubbish in our communities face the consequences, but that would-be perpetrators are deterred. Councils currently have a range of enforcement powers. Those include prosecution, which can lead to a significant fine, community sentences, or even imprisonment. They can also issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 and seize the vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping.
The use of those powers, however, varies significantly across the country, with some councils taking little or no enforcement action at all. Indeed, just two councils—West Northamptonshire and Kingston upon Thames —accounted for the majority of vehicles seized in 2023-24. DEFRA also regularly receives reports of local authorities exercising their enforcement powers inappropriately, for example against householders who leave reusable items at the edge of their property for others to take for free. Through the Bill we intend to enable the Secretary of State to issue fly-tipping enforcement guidance that councils must have regard to.
I want to be clear that the guidance is not about setting top-down targets. We want to empower councils to respond to fly-tipping in ways that work for their communities, while making Government expectations crystal clear. The guidance, which must be subject to consultation, will likely cover areas such as policy and financial objectives of enforcement, how to operate a professional service, the use of private enforcement firms, and advice on how to respond in certain circumstances. Local authorities will, of course, be key stakeholders in the development of the guidance; after all, they are on the frontline in the fight against fly-tipping, and we want to ensure that the guidance provides them with the advice that they will find most helpful.
Amendment 35 aims to ensure that the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, is liable for the costs of cleaning up. I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. It is already the case that, where a local authority prosecutes a fly-tipper and secures a conviction, the court can make a cost order so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. That is made clear in section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although sentencing is of course a matter for the courts. Guidance on presenting court cases produced by the national fly-tipping prevention group, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. We will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. We also committed, in our manifesto, to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they create. DEFRA will provide further details on that commitment in due course.
Amendment 4 would introduce a requirement for any fly-tipping guidance issued under clause 9 to be subject to parliamentary approval. I do not believe that there is any need for such guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure beyond a requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament. That is because the guidance will provide technical and practical advice to local authorities on how to conduct enforcement against fly-tipping and breaches of the household waste duty of care. The guidance will not conflict with, or alter the scope of, the enforcement powers, so I do not believe that it requires parliamentary oversight.
The requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament, without any further parliamentary procedure, is consistent with the position taken with the analogous power in section 88B of the 1990 Act and the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the then Environment Bill in the 2021-22 Session. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations by that Committee in relation to this clause.
New clause 24 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence. As I have said, fly-tipping is a disgraceful act and those who dump rubbish in our communities should face the full force of the law, which could include spot fines of up to £1,000, prosecution or vehicle seizure. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the courts and that to direct them to place penalty points on the driving licence of a convicted fly-tipper would undermine their ability to hand down a sentence proportionate to the offence, but I will ask my DEFRA counterpart who is responsible for policy on fly-tipping to consider the benefits of enabling endorsement with penalty points for fly-tippers.
I also stress that there is an existing power for local councils to seize a vehicle suspected of being used for fly-tipping. If a council prosecutes, the court can order the transferral to the council of the ownership rights to the vehicle, under which the council can keep, sell or dispose of it.
I hope that, in the light of my explanations, the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Sutton and Cheam will be content to withdraw their amendments and to support clause 9.
Matt Vickers
It would be remiss of us to have this debate today and not mention that the Great British spring clean is happening at the moment, thanks to Keep Britain Tidy. I thought I would just put that out there; the Minister need not respond.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 10, page 18, line 38, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
New clause 44—Individual preparation for mass casualty attack—
“(1) A person commits an offence, if, with the intention of—
(a) killing two or more people, or
(b) attempting to kill two or more people,
they engage in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to their intention.
(2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”
This new clause would allow the police to intervene early to prevent attacks, like in terrorism cases, without causing unintended consequences for wider counter-terrorism efforts. It gives effect to a recommendation by the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation following the Southport attack.
Matt Vickers
Clause 10, which creates new section 139AB of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, makes it illegal to possess a bladed or offensive weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence, cause fear of violence, inflict serious damage to property or enable another to do so. A “relevant weapon” for the purpose of the clause includes a bladed article covered by section 139 of the 1988 Act or an offensive weapon within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Additionally, the clause amends section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to bring the offence under the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for repeat offenders, ensuring consistency with existing laws on knife possession and threats involving weapons.
Clause 11 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring or lending prohibited weapons. In England and Wales, those offences are currently summary-only, which means they can be tried only in the magistrates court. The Bill makes them triable either way, meaning they could be tried in either the magistrates court or the Crown court.
Offensive weapons, in particular bladed articles and corrosive substances, have become one of the most pressing concerns in our fight against violent crime. The alarming rise in the use of these dangerous items in criminal activities has not only led to an increase in injuries and fatalities, but instilled fear and a sense of insecurity in communities across the country. The harm caused by these weapons, from knives to acid, is devastating; victims of attacks are often left with life-altering injuries and long-term psychological trauma.
I am sure that all Members, regardless of their party, are united in their determination to ensure that the strictest rules are in place to limit the use of such weapons and ensure that those possessing them feel the full force of the law. It is crucial that we ensure the provisions in the Bill are fair, effective and targeted. The Opposition amendments propose key constructive changes that would strengthen and complement the Bill by ensuring that it is balanced, focused and respectful of individual rights, while still taking robust action to combat the possession and use of offensive weapons in our communities.
Offensive weapons, including knives, blades and corrosive substances, have become tools of shameless violence, often used in serious criminal activities that devastate individuals and communities. We cannot help but remember the countless victims of stabbings in recent years. They are all too many and all too tragic—from PC Keith Palmer, who died in the line of duty protecting Members in this place, to Sir David Amess, one of the gentlest and most genuinely kind individuals you could ever wish to meet, who was barbarically murdered. Those two brave men were murdered not simply by evil and vile terrorists, but by evil and vile terrorists wielding bladed weapons.
I know that tragic instances of stabbing have taken place in the constituencies of many Members, with young lives extinguished or endangered by these weapons. Just recently, a group of individuals armed with knives forcibly entered a private event at Elm Park primary school in London. The assailants assaulted and robbed attendees, and a 16-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man were hospitalised after being stabbed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the incident. One of the most shocking facts is that the youngest of those arrested was just 12 years old.
Already in 2025, there have been far too many cases involving knives and the extinguishing of young lives. In February, a 15-year-old boy was fatally stabbed at All Saints high school in Sheffield. He was attacked three times on his way to lessons—attacks that were witnessed by other students. The emergency services were called and, although the boy was taken to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries shortly afterwards. A fellow 15-year-old student was arrested on suspicion of murder and is in police custody.
Our aim with amendment 39 is not to obstruct but to help strengthen the Bill, so that such cases can never be repeated. The Bill includes several provisions to criminalise the possession of these items in public spaces and introduces serious penalties for individuals caught with them. The goal is to deter violent crimes and reduce the risk posed by such weapons on our streets. The amendment would make a crucial change to clause 10 by increasing the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. The amendment is not only justified but necessary to ensure that our laws properly reflect the severity of such offences.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in the maximum sentence following the Southport attack. It is clear to many that the current four-year maximum does not adequately address the serious threat posed by individuals who arm themselves with the intent to cause harm. By increasing the penalty to 14 years, we would send a clear and unequivocal message that such dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated, and that those who pose a risk to the public will face appropriately severe consequences.
Weapons in the hands of those with violent intent represent a grave danger to both individuals and society at large. The possession of a weapon with the clear purpose of causing harm, whether in a terror-related incident, gang violence or a premeditated attack, is an extreme and deliberate act. It is right, therefore, that the law provides sufficient deterrence and punishment. A 14-year maximum would better reflect the devastation that these crimes can cause and align sentences with those for similarly grave offences such as attempted murder and serious violent crimes.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I rise in support of clauses 10 and 11 and to speak against amendment 39 and new clause 44, well-intentioned though I am sure they are. The shadow Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I want to focus briefly on his March report, to which I believe the shadow Minister was referring.
The explanatory statements to amendment 39 and new clause 44 state—I paraphrase—that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in sentence in his review following the Southport attack. His report, titled “Independent Review on Classification of Extreme Violence Used in Southport Attack on 29 July 2024” and dated 13 March this year, is one that I am sure many colleagues across the House have read. I put on the record my sympathies to everybody involved in that heinous attack and to the victims of the other attacks that the shadow Minister mentioned—and, of course, we think of Jo Cox, a friend much missed and loved in all parts of the House.
There is a risk of misunderstanding in the amendments, albeit I am sure they are well-intentioned. If one looks at Mr Hall’s quite lengthy report in detail, it says a number of things about what is proposed in clause 10. He states that the new offence that we propose to create here
“appears to fill an important gap”.
He goes on to say that
“where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
He concludes by recommending that the Government bring forward legislation to create a different, new offence,
“where an individual, with the intention of killing two or more persons, engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to this intention. The maximum sentence should be life imprisonment.”
Importantly, he says:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
I pay tribute to Mr Hall for his work. The Prime Minister and the Government have committed to acting urgently on the points that he has identified, and to considering the new offence that he references at the end of his report. Given the complexity and the interplay between terrorism and non-terrorism legislation, which Mr Hall acknowledges, they should do so with great care and in consultation with appropriate stakeholders such as the Law Commission. That must be done, in order to ensure that whatever new offence is arrived at is practical, workable and absolutely unimpeachable. That work must continue and conclude, but in the interim, clause 10 does the job.
I point out to Opposition Members that the Bill does not just create a new offence in clause 10, which in itself is sufficient, but does much on youth diversion orders—we will come to those when we debate clauses 110 to 121—and, in clause 122, on the banning of dangerous weapons such as corrosive substances. In written evidence to the Committee, Jonathan Hall himself broadly welcomed those additional measures. For the record, the written evidence reference is CPB 02. He states that youth diversion orders are “extensions” to his original recommendations and that they “are justified”. In respect of clause 122, he states that this is gap that he has previously recommended filling and that the power is much needed. Of course, the Government have done other great work, often with support from both sides of the House. On the statute book right now is Martyn’s law, which will better allow venues to tighten counter-terrorism measures.
There is a package of measures—some already on the statute book, and other important measures, which we are discussing today, that we will hopefully get on the statute book without undue delay. I therefore submit to the shadow Minister that, while they are no doubt well-intentioned, amendment 39 and new clause 44 are not needed at this time. Let the work that I have referenced, and that the Government have committed to, get under way, so that that can be done properly, in line with, and not in contradiction to, what Mr Hall has said, and let us proceed with clauses 10 and 11 as they stand.
Jack Rankin
Clause 10 introduces a new offence of
“possessing an article with a blade or point or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence…to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used…or…to cause serious unlawful damage”.
The introduction of this new offence bridges the gap between being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and threatening somebody with a bladed article or offensive weapon. I commend the intent of the clause wholeheartedly, and thank the Government for it.
I do, however, support amendment 39 and new clause 44, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, although I do thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West for his thoughtful interaction, which has given me pause to consider how these might interact. Perhaps in his summing up the Minister could comment on where, between the two of us, the truth lies.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned, the two measures that have been tabled by the Opposition attempt to bring forward some of the recommendations from the report by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following the heinous Southport attack—and I would like to associate myself with hon. Members’ comments of sympathy with those families. I have had cause to read that report, which I had not done ahead of this Bill Committee. I will quote relatively extensively from page 27, which I think is appropriate given the serious nature of these matters. Paragraph 5.25 says:
“Firstly, possession of an article in private where it is held with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack or other offence of extreme violence. Aside from firearms, it is not, with some limited exceptions, an offence to possess a weapon in private…One can envisage a scenario in which the police, acting on intelligence, find a crossbow, notes about a proposed attack, and material idolising the Columbine killers. At present, the defendant might be arrested on suspicion of terrorism but could not be prosecuted for this conduct. The government is proposing an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in public or in private with intent for violence, with a maximum of 4 years imprisonment in the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West also quoted, the report goes on to state:
“This offence appears to fill an important gap, although where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
From my understanding, in changing that maximum sentence from four to 14 years, the Opposition’s amendment 39 seems to be an expert-led example of where we are trying to constructively add to the Government’s legislation.
New clause 44 seeks to fill a gap, given the need for a more general offence on planning mass casualty attacks, outside of terrorism legislation. Again, I will quote from Jonathan Hall KC’s report. He says on page 28, in paragraph 5.26:
“The law is flexible where multiple individuals are involved. It is therefore an offence for two individuals to make an agreement (conspiracy to murder), for one individual to encourage or assist another, or for murder to be solicited, even though the contemplated attack is never carried out. But it not an offence to prepare for an attack on one’s own unless sufficient steps are taken that the conduct amounts to an attempt. This means that no prosecution would be available if the police raided an address and found careful handwritten but uncommunicated plans for carrying out a massacre.
By contrast, under terrorism legislation it is an offence to engage in any preparatory conduct with the intention of committing acts of terrorism. This includes making written plans. The fact that the prosecution must prove terrorism, not just intended violence, is some sort of safeguard against overbroad criminal liability.”
It seems to me that new clause 44 is an attempt to close that gap. I welcome clause 10, but our amendment and new clause simply reflect the suggestions of the KC, who wrote quite a considered report. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Something that I think we in this House agree on, that I know the police agree on, and that I think the wider public agree on—hon. Members might hear me say this a lot in Committee—is that prevention is always better than detection. I rise to speak having lost, in my previous career, a close colleague and friend to a crime involving an offensive weapon. I only wish we could have prevented that incident.
In essence, the clause is about preventing violence before it occurs. It strengthens penalties for repeat offenders, and aligns with the Government’s broader goal of making communities safer by addressing growing concerns around weapon possession and use in violent crimes. Given the increasing prevalence of offensive weapons such as knives, bladed articles or even corrosive substances, the Bill updates the law to better reflect modern threats. By including a broader range of dangerous items and increasing the focus on intent, the Bill addresses the changing patterns of criminal activity.
I am particularly pleased that the intent provision covers the possession of a corrosive substance, given the rise in acid attacks across the UK. This change is crucial to addressing the growing threat of individuals carrying dangerous substances, such as acid or other corrosive materials, with the intention to cause harm or instil fear. The reference to intent highlights the Government’s commitment to protecting citizens. By targeting the intention to cause harm before it escalates, the clause will help to prevent violent crime and make communities safer.
Clause 11 is vital in addressing the growing severity of offences relating to offensive weapons, including the possession, sale and manufacture of dangerous weapons. By increasing the maximum penalty from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, the clause will significantly strengthen the deterrence against these crimes and ensure that offenders face stringent consequences. The introduction of either-way offences—allowing cases to be tried in either magistrates courts or the Crown court—will provide the police with additional time to investigate and gather sufficient evidence. That will improve the effectiveness of the justice system in tackling weapon-related crimes, reduce the availability of dangerous weapons and, ultimately, enhance public safety. It will also give police confidence in the laws that they are trying to uphold.
Finally, I broadly support the intent and understand the sentiments behind new clause 44. However, having sat on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, which dealt with Martyn’s law, I believe that this issue has been covered elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said. I therefore do not think it is needed.
Anna Sabine
Broadly speaking, we welcome any effort to reduce knife crime, which is obviously a terrible and growing problem. We note Chief Constable De Meyer’s comment, in the oral evidence last week, that the police felt that the measure would allow them to deliver more sustained public protection, which is a good thing, and to have more preventive power. That is all great.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. The first concerns the offence of possessing an article with a blade or an offensive weapon with the intent to use unlawful violence. I represent a fairly rural constituency that comprises some market towns and a selection of villages. Even there, local headteachers tell me that a growing number of schoolchildren, usually boys, are bringing knives into school, because they wrongly think that bringing a knife will somehow defend them against other boys with knives. How do we ensure that no other schoolchildren will get caught up in an offence aimed at the kind of people we might think of as bringing a knife with the aim of committing an unlawful action?
My second question relates to the National Farmers Union’s evidence from last week. The NFU talked about the challenge of catapults often being used not just in wildlife crime but in damaging farming equipment. It said that it understands that it is an offence to carry in public something that is intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but with catapults, it is particularly difficult to prove that intent. It wondered if more consideration could be given to listing catapults as offensive weapons.
David Burton-Sampson
We all know that knife crime ruins lives—for the victim, their family and friends, the perpetrator’s family, and even for the perpetrator. My constituent Julie Taylor is the grandmother of a knife crime victim. On 31 January 2020, Liam Taylor was murdered outside a pub in Writtle—a pleasant place that not many would associate with violent crime. Four individuals approached Liam and three of them attacked him, resulting in Liam being stabbed to death and his friend receiving a serious injury. The attack came in retaliation for an earlier incident, which neither Liam nor his friend were involved in.
Since Liam’s murder, Julie has become an amazing campaigner in the battle against knife crime. She regularly visits schools, universities, colleges, football clubs, scout groups and the like to share Liam’s story and highlight how knife crime destroys lives. She has placed over 500 bleed control bags and 26 bleed control units in key locations across Essex. Sadly, 12 of those have already been used to help 13 people—yes, there was a double stabbing. Her work is all voluntary; she does it in her free time. That is how passionately she feels about the issue. When we met last week, Julie told me:
“All I want is to stop these young people carrying weapons as I can tell you once you lose a loved one to any violent crime, your family is never the same again.”
I shared with Julie the Government’s plans to tackle knife crime through the Bill, and she was delighted. She told me that clauses 10 and 11—and, if the Committee will indulge me, clause 12—are what campaigners have been calling for for so long.
With 1,539 knife crimes taking place in Essex in the year to March 2024 alone, tough action is needed now. These clauses, alongside other measures, will help with the Government’s goal of halving knife crime over the next decade. We must take a truly multi-agency approach, working with the police, charities, young people, victims’ family members, like Julie—they have a real part to play—and businesses, tech companies and sports organisations. I thank the Government for introducing the clauses; they have my full support.
Joe Robertson
I find myself again speaking after a number of others who have spoken eloquently, and broadly with consensus, about the direction of travel of this provision. I obviously support amendment 39 and new clause 44. Knife crime and the way it destroys lives is such a specific and horrific problem for law enforcement. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh gave a good summary of those affected, including young perpetrators and their families. Through using knives at a young age, those perpetrators often get swept into the worst of criminality. Once they are in that world, it is incredibly difficult for them to be brought out of it. Of course, there can be numerous innocent victims, who might stand in the way and get hurt too. I urge the Government to understand that the best possible way of tackling this is to ensure that the courts have the strongest possible sentencing powers. Clearly, 14 years for possessing an offensive weapon would not be appropriate in all cases, but there are cases where it would be—and if the courts do not have those powers, they cannot sentence people to 14 years.
Harriet Cross
I will comment briefly on clause 10, which is on the possession of a weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully for violence. The provision is much needed and, if implemented properly, would be welcome. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, though. First, how does the clause differ from existing legislation with respect to intent to cause harm or carrying an offensive weapon? Are there any nuances specific to knife crime, outwith those covered by existing legislation?
More generally, the Bill is restricted to the clauses before us, but we know that knife crime is multi-faceted—there are an awful lot of reasons why people get involved. As has been said, some feel that they need protection themselves and others do it to fit in, while for others it is to do with the environment in which they grow up. We welcome that the Government have banned zombie knives—the Conservative Government started on the road to that ban and we are glad to see that it has been implemented—but those knives are only responsible for about 3.5 % of knife attacks; every house in the country has a kitchen with knives in. What more are the Government doing, either in this Bill or outside it, to reduce knife crime by tackling the manner in which knives can be accessed and used?
The Government are setting a lot of store by the use of youth hubs to address knife crime, young offending and antisocial behaviour. Although the principle of youth hubs is admirable—and I do mean that—I have heard concerns from Members outwith this room, but certainly invested in this matter, that they may have unintended consequences. For example, where will the hubs be located? Could they entrench more turf wars? Will there be more of an impact if one is located on one gang’s land or another’s? Will some people be completely excluded simply because of their location? I ask these questions to be constructive, because I want the hubs to work for everyone. Similarly, if many different people come to the hubs—for rehabilitation reasons or if we use them to keep people off the streets for many other reasons—what is it that will prevent them from being a recruiting ground for other types of crimes? I reiterate that I am asking these questions to be constructive; I want the hubs to work, but I also do not want anyone to be pulled into more crime as a result.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been a really useful debate. It has highlighted the problems that society is facing with the epidemic levels of knife crime that we have seen in recent times. It was absolutely right for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh to mention Liam Taylor and his grandmother, Julie. Liam is sadly no longer with us, but I pay tribute to Julie for her sterling work in trying to ensure that what happened to her grandson does not happen to anybody else. I also commend her work on the bleed control kits.
I have come across so many families who have lost a loved one through knife crime and want to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. We need to pay tribute to those families, including those who have joined the coalition to tackle knife crime, which the Prime Minister set up soon after the election last July. They will hold this Government to account in doing what we have said we will, which is halve knife crime over the course of the next decade. I pay tribute to Julie and all the other families working in this space to protect young people and make sure that no other family has to suffer the loss of a young person.
Dr Sullivan
A recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs heard from young St John’s Ambulance volunteers. They told us that many of the young people they work with want first-aid training and help with the kits so that they know how to stop bleeding. Is that not an awful indictment of the society we are in, but also a positive thing, in that young people want to be part of the solution?
Dame Diana Johnson
I agree with both those points. It is appalling that we are in that situation, but I pay tribute to St John’s Ambulance for its amazing work, and appreciate that young people want to engage and help to protect life.
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked about young people who feel they might keep themselves safe by carrying a knife. That is clearly not the case: if they carry a knife, they are more likely to be involved in a knife attack. We need to get the message out that it will not protect them.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan referred to early intervention. We want to get in early and do all the preventive work that has, sadly, not happened over the past 14 years. We want to invest in youth hubs, reach young people, give them meaningful activities and instil in them key messages about how to keep safe and what good relationships look like. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley will know, there is more to do on tackling violence against women and girls, because we want to halve that in a decade as well. We have lots of messages and work that we need to do with young people.
On the issue of young people getting involved in knife crime, the prevention partnerships will identify young people who are at risk of getting involved in crime or carrying a knife and try to work intensively with them. Early intervention to divert them from carrying a knife is important. We also have a manifesto commitment to ensure that any young person caught with a knife will be referred to a youth offending team, and there will be a plan of action for how to support them. No more will a young person caught with a knife just get a slap on the wrist and be sent on their way. We will get alongside them and deal with it; otherwise, it could turn into something really dreadful.
I am happy to look at the issue of catapults, which a number of hon. Members raised. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean who, as usual, gave very wise counsel about his experience as a former police officer and how important preventive work is.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out clearly amendment 39 and new clause 44. As he said, they draw on a recommendation by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following his review of the appalling attack in Southport. Like all Members, I express my condolences to the families who lost their beautiful little girls, and to all those who were injured and affected by those events.
Before I respond to the amendment and new clause, let me explain the rationale for clause 10, which introduces a new offence of being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence. As I said, the Government are determined to halve knife crime in the next decade. Legislation has to play a part in delivering for our safer streets mission, ensuring that the criminal law and police powers are fit for purpose. This work sits alongside what I just said about the coalition for tackling knife crime holding the Government to account, and the ban on zombie knives. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan was right that the previous Government brought in that provision, but we have actually made it happen. We will bring in a ban on ninja knives too, as part of Ronan’s law.
On the issue of kitchen knives, I take the hon. Lady’s point that in every house there is a drawer containing knives. There are now calls for us to consider whether in the domestic setting we should have knives that have a round rather than pointed tip. I have certainly been willing to consider that and look at the evidence. It is something we would have to do in consultation with the manufacturers of domestic knives. The Government are open to looking at anything that will start to tackle the problems with knife crime.
It may be helpful if I briefly outline the existing legislation in relation to the possession of offensive weapons. It is currently an offence to be in possession of a bladed article in public without good reason or lawful authority. It is also an offence to be in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and to threaten somebody, either in public or private. All those offences are serious. This new office will close a gap in legislation. The provision will equip the police with the power to address situations in which unlawful violence has not yet happened but where there is an intent to use unlawful violence, an intent to cause someone to believe unlawful violence would be used against them, or an intent to cause serious unlawful damage to property, as well as in situations in which a person enables someone else to do any of those things.
The offence may be committed in either a public place or a private place. There will be situations in which the police come across individuals with a knife or offensive weapon on the street and there is evidence that there is an intent to the weapon for unlawful violence. For instance, were an intelligence-led operation conducted on a motorbike ridden by two males in an urban area, who attempted to escape but were stopped, and both were detained, arrested and searched, and both were found to be in possession in public of a knife, the only offence available to the police would be possession in public of a knife or an offensive weapon. We do not believe that would reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour and their intention.
The proposed new offence is necessary to bridge the gap between possession in public or private and the intention to threaten another person. We also believe that such serious offending behaviour needs to be reflected better in the offence that individuals are charged with, so that a successful prosecution attracts a sentence that more closely aligns with the violent intent and facts of the case. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for setting out her position. Does she not accept, however, that without amendment 39 the maximum sentence of four years for carrying a knife with intent is a serious mismatch with the sentence had the knife been used and somebody was severely injured? That mismatch means that the only way of getting someone sentenced appropriately is to have an injured person at the end. That cannot be right. If someone is carrying a knife, they intend to seriously injure someone. It should matter not whether they have actually done it. The court’s sentencing powers need to be greater than four years in some circumstances.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to come on to amendment 39 which, as the hon. Gentleman says, seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the offence to 14 years’ imprisonment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West for his excellent contribution, which explained the background. The intention of the amendment is to implement the recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation following the horrific attack in Southport. I fear that, as my hon. Friend said so eloquently, amendment 39 takes aspects of Jonathan Hall’s report out of context.
Matt Vickers
We have heard from all parties and all corners of the country about the need to tackle the issue and about the horror that such weapons can cause. Clearly, we all wish the Government well in delivering on their knife crime ambition. We have mentioned knives more than corrosive substances, but they can have equally horrific results, so I am glad to see them included.
Solving the problem is not easy, of course, and it is not all about sanctions: there is a role for education, policing, social media, culture, stop and search, and even technology, which could revolutionise our ability to identify those carrying a knife. The horrific loss of young lives—of young people whose families would give the earth to see them again—continues. To many of the communities torn apart and forever scarred, increasing the maximum sentence available to a judge to 14 years makes nothing but sense. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 12 provides for a new power for the police to seize, retain and destroy any bladed article held in private, when they are on the private premises lawfully and have reasonable grounds to suspect the item is likely to be used for unlawful violence. Clause 13 provides the same power to the service police. Before I turn to the specifics, it may assist the Committee if I set out the context and rationale for the introduction of the measure.
Currently, the police may enter premises and seize items only in particular circumstances—for example, where they have obtained a warrant to search premises for specific items. They have no power to remove weapons from individuals unless they can be used as evidence in an investigation. Therefore, even if the police come across several machetes in a private property while they are there with a search warrant for an unrelated matter—for instance drugs—the only way they can legally remove those machetes is if they are to be used as evidence in the investigation. That is even the case if they suspect that the bladed articles in question will be used unlawfully.
I would like to share a case study to illustrate the need for this measure. Police officers investigating the supply of illegal drugs effected entry to the home address of a person linked to the supply of class A drugs, under the authority of a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was on a suspended sentence for supplying drugs and had previous convictions for offences of violence, including grievous bodily harm and possession of a knife. Upon search of his bedroom, officers found a 44 cm machete. He was charged with drugs offences, but the police had no powers to seize the machete. For the weapon to be removed from the property under existing law, it would have to have already been used unlawfully, either to hurt somebody or to damage property.
That is why we are legislating to introduce a power for any police officer to seize, retain or destroy an article with a blade or point, when they are on the premises lawfully and have reasonable grounds to suspect the relevant article is likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. It is important to note that the police cannot seize any bladed article they see in the property arbitrarily. They will need to justify any seizure they make, not on the basis of a mere suspicion, but because they have reasonable grounds to believe that the article is likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. If a person believes that their property has been seized in error, they will be able to make a complaint to the police, as with any other police matter, if they so wish. If the owner of a seized article believes that it has been seized in error, they may apply to a magistrates court for an order that the article be returned.
To be clear, there is no power of entry associated with the new seizure power. The police will need to be in the property lawfully already—for instance, executing a search warrant as part of an investigation for an unrelated matter, or because they have been called and invited into the property. We will therefore amend PACE code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure, to include this new power, which will ensure that the police use the powers fairly, responsibly and with respect for people who occupy the premises being searched. We believe that having that power will enable the police to remove dangerous knives if they believe they will be used in connection with unlawful violence. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
As mentioned earlier, we are united in the aim of rooting out knives and knife crime from our society. Ensuring that our streets and constituents are safe is of primary importance to us all. Clause 12 introduces a new police power to seize bladed or sharply pointed articles, referred to as “relevant articles”, under specific conditions. A police constable may exercise that power if they are lawfully on premises and find a relevant article, with reasonable grounds to suspect that it could be used in connection with unlawful violence, including damage to property or threats of violence, if not seized.
This provision gives police officers the authority to remove dangerous weapons from potential misuse, enhancing public safety and reducing the risk of harm in situations where there is a credible threat of violence. Clause 13 would create similar powers for armed forces service police. Unlike clause 12, the power for armed forces service police would apply across the UK.
We face a tragedy that continues to unfold in our streets, communities and homes: a tragedy that sees young lives cut short, families shattered and entire communities left in mourning. Knife crime has become a scourge on our society, robbing us of the future doctors, teachers, engineers and leaders who should have had the chance to fulfil their potential. Instead, too many parents now sit by empty chairs at the dinner table, their sons and daughters stolen from them by senseless violence. Every single child lost to knife crime is a story of devastation.
Broadly, clauses 12 and 13 offer great powers to our law enforcement, which of course should be welcome. We cannot ignore the role that stop and search plays in tackling this crisis. In London alone, that policing tool has taken 400 knives off the streets every month, preventing countless violent attacks. Over the past four years, 17,500 weapons have been seized as a result of stop and search, including at least 3,500 in 2024—weapons that would otherwise have remained in circulation, posing a deadly risk to communities. Nor is it is just a London issue: in 2023-24, stop and search led to more than 6,000 arrests in the west midlands and 5,620 arrests in Greater Manchester.
We must, of course, ensure that these powers are used fairly and proportionately, but we cannot afford to weaken a tool that has saved lives. Every knife seized is a potential tragedy prevented. We must stand firm in supporting our police, ensuring that they have the powers they need to keep our community safe. However, I urge caution with some of the provisions and ask the Government to look at some of them and some of the issues that they may lead to.
Clause 12 grants police officers the power to seize bladed articles found on private premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the item will be used in connection with unlawful violence. While the intention of this clause, to prevent violence by removing weapons before harm can be done, is clear, there are some concerns over the impact that the clauses could have. The provision in clause 12 allows for the seizure of bladed articles based on what the police deem to be reasonable grounds to suspect.
The phrase “reasonable grounds” is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and, in some cases, potential abuse of power. Many individuals legally possess knives for legitimate purposes, such as work. Some might argue that this clause could inadvertently criminalise those who have no intention of using their blades for unlawful purposes. The law needs to ensure that the people who possess knives for legitimate reasons are not unjustly targeted or treated as criminals.
Clause 12 empowers the police to seize items from private premises. While there is a clear and overriding public safety rationale, the intrusion into individuals’ privacy could be seen by some as excessive. We must consider how this power might be exercised in a way that balances safety with respect for personal rights. While public safety is paramount, we must not lose sight of the importance of protecting individual freedoms. Some would argue that these clauses, although well intentioned, could pave the way for broader surveillance and unwarranted searches. It is essential that we have guidance within our police forces to create consistency of approach.
Finally, while the clauses provide the police and armed forces with significant powers, we must ask whether they address the root causes of knife crime. This is a reactive measure, seizing weapons after they have been identified as a threat. We need to ensure a comprehensive approach, including education and support, to reduce violence and prevent knife crime from occurring in the first place. I am sure I speak for all Members across the House in our desire to combat knife crime and violence on our streets.
Dame Diana Johnson
I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the clauses in the Bill before us today are exactly the same clauses that were in the Criminal Justice Bill, which obviously, as a Member of Parliament at that point, he would have supported.
Matt Vickers
I would not say I was not supportive of the clauses; I am saying that we need to continue to look at the guidance that we give police officers on the powers, particularly as we extend them.
Dame Diana Johnson
Of course we keep all such matters under review. I am just pointing out that these are exactly the same clauses that the shadow Minister voted for in the Criminal Justice Bill.
On the point that the shadow Minister made about the reasonable grounds for suspecting, which a police officer must have in order to seize the weapon, the knife or bladed item, there is not an unlimited power for the police to seize any article they may wish to take away from the property. They will have to provide reasons why they are seizing the article and, as I said in my remarks, they will have to return the item if a court determines that they have seized it in error.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, this of course is only one measure. There is a whole range of other things that we need to do, particularly in the preventive space, to deal with the issue of knives. However, this measure will give the police, as I am sure he would agree, one of the powers that will help in dealing with the problems we face with knife crime today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before the Whip moves the Adjournment, I just want to say that I will not be chairing this Bill again until much later on and so I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their attendance and attention today and for putting up with the room’s chilly interior—though hopefully not with a chilly Chairman. I also thank the Clerks, our excellent Doorkeepers, Hansard, the broadcasting team and, of course, the Home Office officials. Thank you all and have a great evening.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
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
Eating Disorder Awareness
(1 day, 3 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
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered eating disorder awareness.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart.
Eating disorders are among the most serious and life-threatening of all mental illnesses, but they have been overlooked and underfunded for too long. Because of this, they have one of the largest treatment gaps in modern healthcare, and we must ask why that is. In the face of overwhelming need, why are we still ignoring this crisis, especially as it is a documented fact that recovering from an eating disorder is possible, no matter how long and complex the illness has been?
In the past decade, we have seen an alarming rise in eating disorders—a trend that only worsened during the pandemic. What was already a struggling support system for those affected by eating disorders has collapsed under pressure. Too many people are waiting, too many people are failed and too many people are feeling neglected by the system. The eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, recently published its report, “The right to health: People with eating disorders are being failed”, which highlights the increasing neglect we are seeing across eating disorder services—but that is by no means to say that those who are working in eating disorder services are not working their socks off. People with eating disorders are being told that they are not thin enough, that they are too complex, and in some situations are being moved on to palliative care and identified as treatment-resistant. That is why we are pushing for a complete reformation of eating disorder treatment alongside the development of a stand-alone eating disorder strategy.
During Prime Minister’s questions on 19 March, the Prime Minister emphasised the NHS’s goal of bringing eating disorder care closer to home. This is an important goal, but it requires equitable access to intensive community and day treatment, as highlighted in Beat’s report, “There’s no place like home”. Such services can reduce the need for costly hospital admissions and shorten stays for those who need in-patient care. However, Beat’s report shows that only one in six NHS integrated care systems in England currently offer enough intensive community and day patient treatments for both children and adults. Alongside this, it is crucial that we do not focus on only one end of the spectrum. Day services cannot always meet the needs of those with extreme malnutrition, and in-patient care is critical for many people who need high levels of physical, behavioural and psychological support.
The strain on family carers, who often lack medical expertise, must be considered too. In-patient and day patient care must be part of a well-integrated, stepped care system. If those services are not co-ordinated nationally, gaps will form in the care pathway and patients may fall through the cracks. I agree with the Government that if people are treated in a timely manner in the community, there will be less need for costly in-patient care, but before we make any changes, we must ensure that all levels of care are adequately funded and can work in tandem to provide the best possible support.
I recently had the privilege of hearing Nicky Smith share the story of her courageous daughter, who has been in in-patient services for over a decade. Unfortunately, during her long stays, she has not always received the treatment she needs. Her current stay is now in its 21st month. For the last eight months, her team has been trying to find an alternative placement for her complex needs. Sadly, she has been rejected by every service she has applied to and now faces discharge. Nicky and her daughter acknowledge that although some in-patient units are better resourced than others, being in in-patient care has saved Nicky’s daughter’s life and continues to do so. Over the last 12 years, the community eating disorder teams provided limited, inconsistent support. That caused rapid relapse, sometimes in just a few weeks, leading to low body mass index and frequent readmissions, often to inappropriate units such as general hospitals or acute mental health wards. Ultimately, she was readmitted each time to a specialist eating disorder unit, under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. That is the only way she can complete meals without the need for nasogastric feeding.
In addition to being deeply moving, this story drives home the importance of well-resourced specialist eating disorder units. We cannot cut back on those essential services and force those who are unsuited for discharge into community care. Specialist units are essential for keeping people alive, safe and supported, as they work towards recovery and reintegration into everyday life. That must continue, alongside investment in community and day-treatment programmes.
To tackle eating disorders and develop effective treatments we need to understand them fully. Worryingly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders found that eating disorders accounted for just 1% of the UK’s already severely limited mental health research funding between 2015 and 2019. That is despite people with eating disorders accounting for around 9% of the total number of people with a mental health condition.
Recent funding announcements are even more cause for concern. The Royal College of Psychiatrists found that 24 of the 42 integrated care boards planned real-terms spending cuts to children’s eating disorder services in the current financial year. That would result in real-terms cuts of well over £800,000. Those planned spending cuts come against a background of severely stretched children’s and young people’s eating disorder services: a 13% increase in referrals in the past 12 months; high thresholds to access services, resulting in more young people being in crisis; almost 800 urgent referrals still waiting for treatment at the end of December 2024; and a 30% true vacancy rate for all eating disorder consultant psychiatrist positions across England, as of March 2023. Following those troubling findings, will the Minister assure all of us here and across the country that all ICBs will invest sufficiently in those vital services in 2025-26 and beyond?
As well as providing an increase in funding, we must take a close look at measures to protect children from harmful online eating disorder content. There is growing evidence that social media is linked to an increase in eating disorders among young people. Algorithms are showing harmful content to vulnerable people. Those include posts promoting fasting non-stop for days on end as a healthy lifestyle. There is an online trend of “thinspiration” posts, which glorify unhealthy weight loss. There have also been cases where, even after users have blocked certain accounts, they still see content that promotes eating disorders.
In research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a fictional UK-based 13-year-old user watched a video about eating disorders for the first time. Following the video, one in four suggested videos were for harmful eating disorder content. More than half were for content relating to eating disorders or weight loss. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, YouTube will have a responsibility to protect children from primary priority content such as eating disorders. Yet, YouTube still does not appear to be taking that seriously. In fact, algorithms are pushing the content in order to increase engagement.
Harmful content viewed online can push children further into eating disorders that have a drastic effect on their health, wellbeing and life chances. From the evidence I have seen, I am concerned that, even when the provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 come into force, the actions of those media giants may not change, which truly worries me. Social media is not the cause of eating disorders. Users who post much of this content are unwell and are not doing so maliciously, but social media can lead those who are already suffering further down the path of disordered eating. More needs to be done to hold social media companies accountable to legislation such as the Online Safety Act.
Another issue of grave concern is the need for more accurate recording of eating disorder-related deaths, and a better understanding of the factors contributing to them. As we know, eating disorders are one of the most life-threatening mental illnesses, however, all too often they are not explicitly listed on death certificates, despite being a significant factor in the person’s death. For example, someone suffering from anorexia and severe malnutrition may have their cause of death recorded as organ failure, without any mention of the underlying eating disorder. That is a crucial gap that we must address.
The APPG has heard first hand from people who have experienced the heartbreak of losing a loved one to an eating disorder. One particularly moving example is that of the Laurence Trust, a Northern Irish charity founded by Laurence’s family after his tragic death. Laurence had struggled with bulimia and depression, and eventually suffered a fatal heart attack. His mother Pam shared with the APPG that his death certificate did not list the eating disorder as a contributing factor. Instead, the cause of death was recorded as undetermined. That misclassification not only deprives families of closure, but hinders our understanding of the true scale of eating disorder-related fatalities.
To better prevent such deaths in future, we must ensure that coroners’ reports accurately reflect eating disorders as contributory factors. Only by tackling these deaths can we gain a clearer picture of the impact of eating disorders, and take meaningful steps towards prevention and improved care. Accurate recording will raise awareness and ultimately save lives. It is high time that eating disorders are treated with the seriousness they deserve. We are all well aware of the many different parts of the NHS that require additional funding, but I have simply heard far too many harrowing stories about delays to treatment, inadequate care and premature inpatient discharge. Now is the time for change.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In my constituency of Horsham, we had a particularly upsetting case of a constituent whose daughter had significant mental health and behavioural issues that were very difficult to deal with and, as a consequence of those not being dealt with, she also developed an eating disorder. The only place they could send her to that could cope with that combination of factors was in Yorkshire—my constituency is in West Sussex. That was an extraordinary burden on the family. We need provision across the country to deal with the cases that present.
Wera Hobhouse
I totally agree. Unfortunately, there is a massive postcode lottery. Services need to improve across the country so that everybody, like my hon. Friend’s constituent, can get the treatment they need as close to home as possible, because carers are so important, and so that families can see their loved ones.
In the last year alone, more than 30,000 acute admissions for eating disorders were recorded—that is a vast number. What was already an overstretched and under-resourced support system for those affected by eating disorders has now become a national emergency. Our APPG report sadly proved these systemic failures are costing lives. It is clear we need an urgent and comprehensive overhaul of eating disorder care and treatment in this country to ensure that we do not lose our important inpatient care, and to massively improve community and day treatments. I add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, that if eating disorders, or the underlying mental health disorders, are not prevented or cared for early enough, everything becomes so much worse further down the line.
I repeat that we must address the role social media plays in promoting eating disorders and harmful content, especially to young people. We also cannot even begin to understand the depth of this crisis without accurate data regarding eating disorder-related deaths. I hope the Government have heard what I said today, and will act fast and decisively to ensure that eating disorder sufferers finally receive the treatment and care they all deserve. I have been chair and vice-chair of the APPG on eating disorders for the last six years. That is a long, frustrating time to see get worse something that one wants to get better, so I hope that today may be the start of us turning a corner.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I will bring in an informal guide for Members: if everyone speaks for about four minutes, we can hopefully get everybody in.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her fantastic, articulate and passionate speech, and for the work she has done, along with the rest of the all-party parliamentary group, on this very important issue.
According to Beat, at least 1.25 million people in the UK—that is one in 50 people—are living with an eating disorder. As we know, eating disorders are complex health conditions that are often misunderstood or undiagnosed, which often prevents people from reaching out for help. Even when somebody is brave enough to reach out for help, or they reach a crisis point that requires intervention, they often struggle through a complex and underfunded system that does not provide the comprehensive help they need.
As we heard, in January the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group published a stark report that stated that NHS admissions for eating disorders exceeded 30,000 for the first time in 2023-24, that eating disorder services have become worse rather than better over the past few years, and that some NHS trusts are discharging patients with a body mass index of less than 15 and even as low as 11.1. The most recent report from Beat, “There’s No Place Like Home”, found that, worse still, only one in seven NHS areas in the UK provides the recommended level of intense community and day treatment for children, young people and adults, with 6% offering that for children and young people only and 10% offering it for adults only. Those are staggering statistics but, as we know, behind them lie the real human stories, which highlight the inadequacies of the system as it stands and the heartbreak that the individuals and their families go through.
Over the years I have dealt with a number of cases. A few years ago there was a particularly harrowing case of a teenage girl whose weight had dropped so low that she was in a life-threatening crisis a number of times, but nearly every time she needed hospital admission her family were informed that no specialist beds were available. In one instance, she was offered a bed on a general paediatric ward, where staff were not trained in dealing with eating disorders. She was put on a refeeding plan, but because there were no specialist staff, she did not eat anything significant and her weight dropped even further. In another instance she was offered a bed on an adult psychiatric ward, which is a frightening place for any teenager, and in another the family were told that there were simply no beds available and that if they were really worried about her, they should just go straight to A&E.
The situation has not improved in recent years. I have a story similar to the one we heard from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). A local resident in Greater Manchester is in a state of crisis, but the only available bed they have been offered is in Glasgow, away from their family support system, which is essential to their long-term recovery. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is clear on the causes of the crisis. It says:
“Services are struggling to manage demand partially due to chronic staff shortages, historic underfunding and a lack of resources. They must be provided with additional funding so that they can meet the needs of patients and carers both now and in the future.”
It is certainly welcome that the Government have recently responded positively to the reports by the APPG and Beat, but I would be grateful for more clarification from the Minister on a number of recommendations—namely, on implementing a national strategy, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Bath; on additional funding for eating disorder services to address demand; on a confidential inquiry into all eating disorder deaths; and on non-executive director oversight for adult and children’s eating disorder services.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I acknowledge and thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her long campaign on this topic, for securing this debate and for all that she has done and will probably have to continue to do on this agenda for a while. I entirely endorse the campaign and the things that need to happen that she and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) have outlined.
Eating disorders present an utter tragedy to families and to young people. Last week I met a family in my constituency whose daughter is in the grip of anorexia. We had a long conversation about both the services available and the nature of the illness itself. I asked the simple question, “What is anorexia and where does it come from?” Despite the extent of their experience and all the reading they have done, it was a very difficult question to answer. The answer included that it is like an addiction, or has the qualities of an addiction. There is apparently a genetic component, and a link with autism. As the hon. Member for Bath suggested, there is a clear element of social contagion—her points about social media are extremely important. It strikes me that in many ways anorexia is an illness of modernity. It is a consequence of the pressures that young people and, indeed, older people can face in this very difficult world we live in. That suggests that a multiplicity of responses are appropriate.
I pay tribute not just to colleagues here, on the APPG and across the House who campaign on this issue, but to campaigners from outside Parliament, including Chelsea Roff, Hope Virgo, Agnes Ayton and others, whom I have got to know in the last couple of years. I honour their expertise and commitment.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, and as cannot be pointed out too often, eating disorders, and anorexia in particular, are treatable illnesses. The services are in absolute crisis, as we have heard, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the illnesses are treatable. There is clearly desperate confusion in the NHS between the physical and mental dimensions, particularly when it comes to the extreme acute phase of anorexia. We know it is the most dangerous mental illness in terms of the tragedy of death. There is clearly a lot to do in reconciling the mental and physical sides of our health service.
The hon. Member for Bath and I are on different sides on this, and the Minister and I have been debating it over the last month or so, but I have to acknowledge my concern about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Currently, there are patients in our NHS who are diagnosed with eating disorders—anorexia in particular—who are categorised as terminally ill by the system and put on a palliative care pathway, because the system decides that their condition is not in fact treatable. It is scandalous and tragic that people who have a condition that is eminently treatable are categorised as terminally ill.
My great concern is that if we were to pass that Bill, we would end up with people being diagnosed as eligible for an assisted death. It is important to acknowledge that in other countries that have assisted dying laws, our understanding is that, in all those jurisdictions, people with anorexia have qualified for and been given an assisted death. In 100% of the cases that we know about, they passed the capacity test that we would apply here in our country. That is my great concern.
Wera Hobhouse
It is important that we stress that an eating disorder is not a terminal illness and therefore should not fall under that legislation. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on that; I think we disagree on his worries about how it would be treated, practically, in the future. An eating disorder is not a terminal illness.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I entirely agree. It is vital to stress that point, and I am sure the Minister agrees.
I agree with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Salford that we need a complete reformation of the system—I will not repeat the points of the campaign, which I endorse. I am deeply concerned about the prospect of cuts to eating disorder services. It is a great shame that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health is declining. That is very significant.
I pay tribute to the sufferers—these amazing people who battle through this awful illness. They are mostly girls but also young men—I know a young man who is still in the grip of the condition. And I pay tribute to their families. I emphasise, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bath would, given her experience, that there is hope. We must not give up on these young people. We must absolutely provide the services that are needed. We need to get our systems and our society right.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). When I was elected last year, I cared about eating disorders, but through her work on the APPG I have really come to understand them much more.
I pay tribute to the secretariat, Hope Virgo—it is almost insulting to describe her as the secretariat, because she is such a powerhouse and really cares about this issue. I made the mistake of doubting the ambition of the APPG but, through the hon. Member for Bath and through Hope, we have made fantastic progress. Through them, I was shocked to find out that people are entering palliative care because of eating disorders. That is a disgrace and a sign that the whole system is failing the people—largely young people—facing this disease. I hope the Minister acknowledges that that is unacceptable.
I am a Scottish MP, so I want to talk a bit about Scotland, where the situation is just as stressed as it is in England, but I will end with a slight glimmer of hope. Since I was elected last July, I have met people in Edinburgh South West who face eating disorders. I met a parent whose daughter had waited months for a consultation. They were filled with hope as the date arrived, only to find out that it was just a triaging slot to decide whether she should be referred to formal treatment months later.
I met a parent whose daughter had been admitted to hospital and was released over a few days to see whether she could cope at home. She could not, but when she was taken back after the weekend, she was told that the bed space had gone, and that left the family in absolute crisis.
I am not surprised that there is pressure on admissions. The number of people admitted in Scotland has increased substantially since 2007, and almost doubled during covid, so the system in Scotland is under real pressure. I spoke to the chief executive of my local NHS board about that, and she described the state of eating disorder treatment in the Lothians as at the absolute minimum acceptable level. I think we know what that means for many families.
I then contacted the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care—Scotland’s equivalent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), if Members can imagine that—and he replied with lots of talk about frameworks, strategies and something alarming called a flexible funding stream, which did not fill me with too much hope. He outlined that the Scottish Government commissioned a review in 2020, and in 2024 created a template for eating disorder treatment that they can roll out across the country. I am slightly wary about that, because in Scotland we have lots of fantastic policies but implementation is often the issue—[Interruption.] I see Members nodding; they are well aware of that. Just £5 million has been allocated to the implementation of the strategy; none the less, it fills me with hope.
The eating disorder strategy must build on mental health provision for young people that is fit for purpose. In Scotland, about 10% of young people wait more than 18 weeks after referral for their first mental health appointment. The number of young people treated for mental health issues in Scotland has dropped by 15%, so there are massive waiting lists but the treatment pace is dropping. Currently, about 4,000 people are waiting for treatment. This year, this Government set aside the biggest ever settlement for Scotland, and a large amount of that money has rightly been allocated to the NHS. I really hope that some of that money trickles down to mental health provision for young people, and specifically for eating disorders.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and for all her work. It is important that we keep bringing attention to this important issue, because eating disorders continue to claim far too many lives and undermine the wellbeing of countless people.
As we have heard, recent statistics show the severity of the challenge. The proportion of 11 to 16-year-olds with an eating disorder rose from one in 200 in 2017 to five in 200 in 2023. Hospital admissions have doubled in the past decade, and as we know, hospital is not always the most appropriate destination. More alarmingly still, rates among 17 to 19-year-olds surged from one in 100 in 2017 to more than 12 in 100 last year.
Despite those worrying statistics, eating disorders are often viewed through a narrow lens. Conditions such as muscle dysmorphia are increasingly affecting teenagers and are challenging the stereotype of what an eating disorder is. Muscle dysmorphia is a dangerous condition that can lead not only to disordered eating, but in some cases to the use of anabolic steroids or other performance-enhancing substances, as we are increasingly seeing.
Social media platforms play an influential role in shaping perceptions of body image and can sometimes fuel these destructive conditions. We are continually exposed to curated images of supposedly perfect physiques, with posts and videos that can glamorise unhealthy behaviours. Although social media has the potential to serve as a space for positivity and connection, we must recognise that it can also intensify body-related anxieties and push vulnerable individuals towards extreme measures. Rather than letting this content spread unchecked, it is vital to ensure that any material glorifying unhealthy lifestyles, whether that means severe calorie restriction or steroid use, is firmly curtailed, while healthy evidence-based advice is made readily available.
We must address eating disorders by looking not just at the initial health impact, but at the wider environment, and taking a holistic, preventive approach. We should support educators and parents as well as healthcare professionals in understanding how to identify early warning signs. At the same time, those responsible for digital platforms must be held to account for the environment that they create and for the potentially harmful messages that they allow to be shared. Designing algorithms to highlight balanced, medically sound advice, rather than misleading or extreme content, would be a significant step in minimising the harm and in guiding young people towards healthy lifestyle choices.
In the light of the growing impact of eating disorders and related conditions such as body dysmorphia, I urge the Government to recognise the growing threat. By combining robust health education with online protections, we can take the first step towards safeguarding the next generation from an epidemic that has already caused so much damage. We owe it to our children and young people to ensure that they can learn, socialise, grow and celebrate difference. I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s call for an eating disorder strategy as the first step.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this extremely important debate and for the work that she and others have done with the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group.
I have come to this debate to speak up on behalf of the many people who have suffered from eating disorders, both past and present. I confess to having a personal interest, as one of those people is my mum. Like many people who suffer from anorexia, my mum developed the disorder as a teenager; as with many people, it came from being bullied by her peers at school. I do not want to give away my mum’s age—that is something that she would never forgive me for—but hon. Members will appreciate that that was a little while ago, although I believe that it has a huge impact on her even today.
I can only begin to imagine the additional pressure that young people suffer now that abuse and bullying does not end at the school gate, but extends online, with negative comments, memes and unrealistic, sometimes AI-generated body images. It has worsened a great deal since the pandemic. Approximately 1.25 million people have some sort of eating disorder. One in eight 17 to 19-year-olds in England were reported to have had an eating disorder in 2023. Having spoken to a resident in Harlow who wishes to remain anonymous, I know that this is as much an issue in my constituency as it is anywhere else. I urge anyone who is struggling with an eating disorder in Harlow to reach out.
The service lead for eating disorders at the Essex partnership university NHS foundation trust has described eating disorders as typically developing in adolescence and early adulthood, leading to changes in a person’s brain, body and behaviour. He also says that early intervention is essential in reversing these changes and improves the likelihood of a full recovery. More recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that services are struggling with demand. In February this year, the Government said that NHS England were processing an update to the commissioning guidance on eating disorders. Can the Minister tell us what the recent announcements on changes to NHS England will mean for the publication of that guidance?
Once again, I thank the APPG for its work on this important issue. I particularly thank Beat for publishing its report and for publishing some really important data on eating disorders. The hon. Member for Bath spoke about the lack of data and the lack of understanding about eating disorders; I have to say that when I was researching this debate, I found that the data for my constituency of Harlow was sorely lacking.
I rarely speak in a Westminster Hall debate without mentioning young carers. This issue has an impact on them as well. I echo the valid point from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) that support for people with eating disorders is a postcode lottery. For families who have to travel long distances, such as to Glasgow, to care for a loved one with an eating disorder, there is a huge cost. There is a disproportionate impact on those who are living in poverty and on low-income families.
I will finish by saying a massive thank you to the hon. Member for Bath for bringing forward the issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I wish you well in your first debate in your new role as Chair, Mr Stuart? It is your first debate, and I am sure you will keep us all in order. You are always in order in the Chamber, so that sets an example. I jest, of course.
I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for leading today’s debate. She is greatly to be commended for having spoken about the issue in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber for so many years. I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate; as the DUP health spokesperson, I have dealt with many issues on which people who have been suffering with eating disorders have sought help and support that will benefit them in the long term. As I always do in these debates, I will give some background on the situation in Northern Ireland, which replicates what other Members have said and will say.
Eating disorders present a significant health concern that affects all age groups back home. A study has found that some 16.2% of 11 to 19-year-olds in Northern Ireland met the criteria for a probable eating disorder. We are quite worried about that in Northern Ireland; I certainly am in Strangford, because it is absolutely shocking.
Between April 2022 and March 2023, the charity Beat delivered 603 helpline sessions to individuals aged 18 to 22 in Northern Ireland—a massive 225% increase, which is very worrying. Action Mental Health has revealed that between 50 and 120 people in Northern Ireland develop anorexia every year, and around 107 develop bulimia, which are worrying figures. There are approximately 100 admissions to hospital for eating disorders every year. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I add that information because it shows how things are back home. I will give an example of how we have managed to overcome the problem.
There are many risk factors for eating disorders, including genetics, psychology, trauma, abuse and—a large one for young people today—social media, to which the hon. Member for Bath referred. It is important to remember that eating disorders can affect anyone, not just young people and not just women. It has been said that early intervention is essential for improving outcomes and for reducing the duration of the disorder. There is commonly a stigma around eating disorders; more often than not, people suffering with an eating disorder feel extreme shame.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the shame that sufferers sometimes feel is an issue that wider society needs to grapple with? There is often self-denial about the problem, even when others can see it. As well as having data and support, we need to show empathy to overcome the problem.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his wise words, as always. He reminds us of the pressure that is on everyone.
It is important that our schools have the tools. They need to support young people who may be suffering or on the verge of suffering with a serious eating disorder. Beat’s SPOT—school professionals online training—was introduced to enhance teachers’ ability to identify and respond to potential signs. There is potential for further teaching within our local schools to promote awareness of the dangers of social media and of how it is often not a positive reflection of reality. Young people do not have to look a certain way and are often unaware of the health dangers of eating disorders, which are completely distorted by social media and the internet.
Back in 2012, a constituent came to see me. I know the mum and dad very well; they both served in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They were extremely worried about their daughter. It would be no exaggeration to say that she was probably on the point of death. The mother went to the then Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots; they approached me and I spoke to the Minister over here. We were able to get her transferred from Northern Ireland to St Thomas’ hospital, just across Westminster bridge. Today, that young lady has been cured; she is a mother to two children; she has a business. All those things happened because of the co-ordination between Northern Ireland and the Health Minister here, so there was good news at the end.
The funding for mental health and for the services that deal directly with eating disorders must be improved to ensure that people who need it have access to behavioural therapy, nutrition education, monitoring and, in some cases, in-patient care and hospitalisation. I look to the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that those are a priority and that he will engage further with the Education Minister and the devolved nations to ensure that schools are equipped to protect young people and have the knowledge of the early signs that they may require help.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Stuart; thank you for your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am also a member of the eating disorder APPG.
As has been mentioned, recent data suggests that one in eight 17 to 19-year-olds in England have an eating disorder—a massive increase from fewer than 1% in 2017. On average, young people are now waiting for almost three and a half years to get treatment.
My relationship with anorexia began nine years ago. It is a story that I am sure resonates with many thousands of other parents the length and breadth of Britain; frankly, it is a massive part of why I became an MP. My story began when I took a phone call from a teacher at my daughter’s school. She asked me to come and collect her, as she had passed out, having not eaten breakfast or dinner.
Over the next few months and years, my daughter, whose relationship with food had already become terribly distorted, unbeknown to me, was clutched by anorexia. Its claws dug deeper and deeper into her as she slipped into a desperately poorly state. She became too unwell for school, and the pressure of her exams was like a ton of bricks on her as the anorexia gave her a cruel outlet for the control—something that sits behind so much of this—that she sought in her life.
As parents, our most solemn undertaking is to protect and nurture our children. Against this terrible illness, I was utterly useless. As my daughter’s illness took hold, I became more and more angry: first with her, then with others, and then with the system. It was only years later that I had to have it explained to me that that anger was actually driven by fear. I was impotent to support my daughter. Worse still, I was incapable of finding anyone else who could provide her with the care that she so desperately needed.
Here is the killer blow. The only way she could qualify for lifesaving support was if she became critically ill—so ill that she was staring death in the face. Imagine sitting at the kitchen table for hours, watching your emaciated child looking terrified at a small plate of food in front of her and hoping that she does not eat it, so she becomes so ill that she qualifies for the support that she needs. Those truly shameful thoughts are etched on my conscience and visit me every single day. They have left an indelible stain on my soul. For having those terrible thoughts, to my daughter, wherever she is, if she sees this speech, I want to say, “I’m sorry, my lamb.”
Wera Hobhouse
I congratulate the hon. Member on being so brave in talking about his own experience. I, too, have a daughter who suffered from an eating disorder; she was not quite as ill as he describes his daughter being, but I am still visited by those hours—though they were many years ago—when I was gripped by fear and anxiety. It is only by sharing these stories that we can ultimately bring all this to light, so again I thank him for being brave enough to share that.
Perran Moon
I thank the hon. Member. How could a system be so warped as to make a parent feel that way about their own child—the thing they love most, more than anything else in the world? Measuring the criticality of eating disorders through BMI is a medieval evaluation, hopelessly inadequate to the needs of the sufferer. Proper psychological assessments must be undertaken at the earliest identification of a problem, with a package of appropriate measures applied thereafter, dependent on the severity of the case.
My daughter spent two periods of six months in hospital. She recovered her health and is today working in the NHS in mental health services as a senior assistant psychologist, using her own painful experience to offer others the care and support she never had. Under-investment has left mental health services stretched beyond capacity, and young people like my daughter become desperately unwell while sitting on waiting lists, with the cost of their recovery, both emotionally and financially, spiralling by the day.
I know the Department of Health is taking the issue incredibly seriously, but we must prioritise a rapid overhaul of the system to offer hope to young people and their families. This Government must prioritise investment into mental health and eating disorder services. Today, I ask the Minister to say to all the families going through that hellish tornado of pain, to all those angry dads, tearful mums and terrified children, “Hang in there. We will come for you. We know your pain and we will act swiftly to help you to relieve it.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I do not know how to follow that speech. I just want to thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). I can understand how tough it was. I also put on record that we all agree that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is a star, who has been working on this throughout, and so are Hope Virgo and Dr Agnes Ayton and all the others behind the scenes.
Just to give some hope to hon. Members, we now have a Minister in place with a record of understanding these issues, and with some of the sharpest elbows in Government to get the resources, so I am confident that there will be a move forward. He is aware of the strategy. It is straightforward. There must be input into training not only for health workers, but for teaching staff and education psychologists. We had school nurses come forward with a package that was incredibly effective in raising awareness on the issues, including online safety.
We need community level support services, specialist units and family support. One of the issues raised in the briefings we have circulated from the all-party parliamentary group is the lack of family support. As has been exemplified, when a family member becomes a sufferer of these conditions, the family feel completely isolated and lack support in some of the most challenging situations any family can face. During the discussions around this strategy, there is a need to go into the detail of family support, including the professional advice and community support they can access, to ensure that they do not become isolated.
There is also the issue of financial support. I ask the Minister to look at the consultation on disability benefits and support for people with long-term sickness conditions that is taking place now. Again, it is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure that sufferers do not lose their benefits as a result of this review. The Government are undertaking consultations, but not on the criteria for the personal independence payment, the points-awarded system. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that and liaise with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, so that sufferers do not lose the benefits support that they have. Also, some families who are receiving carer’s allowance as a result of the award of PIP to an eating disorder sufferer may be at risk of losing that benefit, but they should not be. We are not even sure what the numbers are, so we would all be extremely grateful to the Minister if he could pay attention to that issue.
Finally, the principle of the all-party group’s work has been to seek a process in Government for co-production of the strategy, in a timetabled way and with funding allocated over the life of this Government. That way, by the time we get to the next election, we can be confident that the strategy has been implemented based on the expertise of those who really know what needs to be done—the sufferers themselves and the families who support them. That process of co-production is as important even as the scale of funding that we need to achieve. Otherwise we will be wasting resources, rather than investing them effectively on the basis of what will work.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his deeply moving and courageous speech.
As with many mental illnesses, eating disorders often present first in children and young people. Like other hon. Members, I am alarmed by the NHS England statistics that show that in 2023, 12.5% of 17 to 19-year-olds in England were living with an eating disorder. According to YoungMinds,
“Young people can use their behaviour around food and eating to try to cope with…difficult thoughts, feelings and experiences.”
YoungMinds also states:
“Over time, these kinds of thoughts and behaviours around food become very fixed and difficult to change—and may start to take over daily life.”
Early intervention for a young person struggling with an eating disorder is clearly critical if we want to support them to live a healthy, fulfilling life.
I was politicised at school by the disparities in the mental health support received by my peers, and we know that young people today are at the sharp end of the mental health crisis. I, too, have had friends who struggled with eating disorders and disordered eating, and during the general election last year I was contacted by a young woman who had waited four years for her first child and adolescent mental health services appointment. Sadly, that has become the norm, rather than the exception, for young people with mental illnesses.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to cutting NHS waiting lists and investing in talking therapies. I also welcome the commitment this Government have made to getting mental health support into our schools and delivering a network of Young Futures hubs with trained youth workers and drop-in mental health support, so that we can address eating disorders and mental health conditions early, and support our young people.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister, and I would be grateful if he could address them in his response. First, could he set out what the Government are doing to improve the early identification of eating disorders? For example, in 2023, Place2Be called for every professional working with children and young people, including in the healthcare workforce, to be trained to identify young people with potentially impairing eating behaviours. Has the Department had considered that?
Given the huge impact of the pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of young people, could the Minister further set out what action the Government are taking to specifically support individuals who developed an eating disorder or mental health condition during that time? Finally, could the Minister set out what cross-departmental work the Government are undertaking to ensure a joined-up approach to supporting young people with eating disorders?
Those struggling with eating disorders deserve support and they need action, and we must treat eating disorders as the emergency that they represent. I was particularly moved by the words of the hon. Member for Bath, given her important work on the issue over a number of years, about the frustration of seeing things get worse, not better. I reflect on my experience as a young person going through school and watching my peers struggle with eating disorders and mental health conditions. Now I come into this place to represent my community, knowing that young people today are struggling so much more. That makes the urgency of the task even greater, so I thank the her again for her work and for securing the debate.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Last but not least on the Back Benches, I call Luke Charters.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon); he is an inspirational dad with an inspirational daughter, and we all wish his family well.
I will speak about eating disorders affecting young men and boys. We need to focus on online influencers and the impact they can have on eating disorders, so of course I must mention the TV show “Adolescence”. An under-discussed theme of the series was the 13-year-old boy’s concern about his own body image, driven by social media. Recent research shows that eating disorders are growing at a faster rate in young men—a concerning trend.
Over the last few years we have seen toxic influencers drive false expectations about what young men should look like, and some young boys are being diagnosed with a lesser condition called bigorexia or muscle dysmorphia. Bigorexia drives boys to engage in extreme behaviours such as excessive weightlifting for their age, steroid use and excessive dieting and supplement intakes, all in pursuit of a totally unattainable ideal.
“Gym bros” and fitness influencers are giving impressionable young men and boys a false sense of security about many products. Paediatric science is uncertain about the effects of the intake of those products in children, and there are dangerous mental health scenarios as children clamour for them. Such products are often marketed with cheap deals and attractive flavours, such as blazing berry or creatine candy.
Another issue is the lack of advertising regulation. Ever-younger children are having that content pushed their way, resulting in a detrimental impact on their lives as they chase an unrealistic body type. This week I am writing to Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority, requesting that they review the current guidelines for advertising creatine supplements, low-carb diets and more, all of which I believe are harmful for children.
However, we also need positive role models and influencers, particularly in those sport, who can reach the young male demographics most at risk. There should be more airtime for Gareth Southgate than for Andrew Tate.
As my son grows up, I say to him, “Being a man in modern Britain is about how you behave, not how you’re built; how you express yourself, not what you eat, and how you support others, not how you suppress your emotions.” Whether we are grandparents, parents, aunties, uncles or anything else, we all want to see the next generation make misogyny extinct, so I make one final request today: it would be fantastic if the Minister could meet me to discuss my campaign to stop the selling of supplements and creatine to children.
I have a second son on the way this summer, and I want my boys to grow up to be respectful of women and confident and comfortable in themselves.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
The winding-up speeches begin with Jess Brown-Fuller.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing today’s important debate and for her tireless work over six years as chair of the all-party group on eating disorders. She has been a consistent and compassionate advocate for better awareness, better services and better outcomes for those affected. I am also pleased to see the Minister’s sharp elbows here in Westminster Hall today, as described by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Eating disorders are among the most serious and complex mental health illnesses. As the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out, it is estimated that more than 1.2 million people across the UK are living with an eating disorder, and, tragically, eating disorders carry the highest mortality rate of any mental health condition. Instead of stepping up to meet the scale of the crisis, however, services are being cut. The statistics are shocking: in 2023 the proportion of 11 to 16-year-olds with an eating disorder had risen fivefold from 2017, and among 17 to 19-year-olds the rate had surged from 1.8% to 12.5% over the same period.
Girls are disproportionately affected, with rates four times higher than boys, although we are seeing a concerning trend of more males suffering with eating disorders, as highlighted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said, numbers across the UK have risen dramatically since the pandemic, but behind each of those numbers are young people whose lives, education and futures are being taken away from them by this illness.
Hospital admissions for eating disorders have doubled over the past decade, yet the national treatment targets set under the previous Conservative Government in 2019—for 95% of urgent cases to be seen within one week and 95% of routine cases within four—were dropped by that same Administration under the 2024-25 mental health national priorities, or success measures, and have not been reintroduced by the current Labour Government. That is a moral failure and it must be reversed. Instead, most areas in England are planning real-term cuts in eating disorder provision. As many Members have highlighted, 24 of the 42 integrated care boards across the NHS in England are projected to reduce their spending for under-18s in 2024-25 once inflation is factored in. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that even current levels of funding are too low to cope with the rising demand. Cutting further will only make the crisis worse.
We must understand the true cost of inaction. Eating disorders strip people of their health, their relationships, their adolescence and, in too many cases, their lives. Still, many people are being told they are not thin enough to receive care. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his speech reflecting his experience, and that of parents across the UK, of waiting for a child to hit an arbitrary target on a scale that suggests that their mental health is bad enough to get the help that they so desperately need. We know that early intervention is effective. If people are not believed or not seen as ill enough, they are left to deteriorate until a crisis becomes a tragedy.
The crisis is being compounded by the influence of social media and online platforms. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) told us, it is a “crisis of modernity” and of the increased societal pressures on our young people. Recent research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that algorithms on platforms such as YouTube are actively recommending harmful eating disorder-related content to young users. These are not passive platforms. They are powerful tools that are shaping the mental health of our children, and they must be held to account. I do not identify as a young person any more—my children definitely do not identify me as a young person—but I see it on my algorithms. I actively seek out body-positive profiles and yet what appears on my feed is people telling me that I can lose weight in 28 days, or shape myself for summer. Our young people see this all too often and think it is the norm.
We as Liberal Democrats believe that addressing the crisis requires a bold and evidence-led strategy. That means building specialist support into the NHS, not as a niche service but as a fundamental part of mental health care. It means embedding early intervention through mental health hubs in every community, so that young people can access help long before they reach crisis point. We are calling for mental health check-ups or a mental health MOT at key points in people’s lives, when they are most vulnerable to developing serious illnesses. We believe every school should have a dedicated mental health professional so that children can get support early and in a familiar environment, without stigma or delay.
Lastly, we must also recognise the crucial role of families. Unpaid carers, parents, siblings, partners and children are often left to navigate a fragmented and under-resourced system alone. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the Government must work with and not against carers to expand the support they need and deserve. No parent should have to fight for their child to be taken seriously. I saw that fight in my own patch of Chichester, where a mother had to leave work for two hours every day to go to her child’s school to sit in a room with them so that they were supported to eat their lunch. The school could not facilitate a member of staff to sit with that child, who was tackling a very serious eating disorder but who was desperate to stay in school.
Campaigners like Hope Virgo have done an extraordinary job of raising awareness, but it should not always fall to campaigners and grieving families to fill the gaps left by Government inaction. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bath in calling for the exploration of an eating disorder national strategy.
This is a national crisis and it is costing lives. The Government must listen to those on the frontlines—patients, carers, clinicians and campaigners. They are not calling for sympathy. They just want action, and we owe it to them to respond.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, for your maiden appearance as Westminster Hall Chair. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate. She and I share many opinions on body image, algorithms, social media, steroid use and eating disorders. Although I am responding to the debate as spokesperson for His Majesty’s official Opposition, I am pleased to have the chance to build on the work that the hon. Member and I have enjoyed bringing forward together.
The hon. Member for Bath was right to point out that one in 50 people will suffer with an eating disorder or disordered eating. That means that we likely all know someone who suffers. It is true for people close to me, too, and I have seen what can happen both personally and professionally. It is therefore timely that the theme of Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2025 was “Eating disorders can affect anyone”. That is an important fact to recognise. Why? Because we know that eating disorders have some of the worst outcomes of any mental health diagnosis. Early intervention is key to break the cycle. Without doing so, it is devastating not only for the patient but for families and friends, the health service and, ultimately, society.
Disordered eating can take a variety of forms, from limiting the amount of food eaten, eating very large quantities of food at once, getting rid of that food through unhealthy means—through purging, laxative misuse, fasting or excessive exercise—or a combination of all of those. That can be one reason why it is so damaging. With other medical issues such as alcohol, drugs or gambling, the aim is abstinence, but of course that simply cannot be the case in this instance: we all need to eat.
Disordered eating is not just about the compulsive element. It is far more complex than that. Drivers of control and shame are so powerful. A sufferer told me:
“Eating disorders are not about food. At least they didn’t start that way. We, the eating disordered, started by using dysfunctional eating habits and starvation to control our feelings and gain a sense of control of the world around us. This soon spiralled into a dangerous daily obsession of reaching our ultimate unattainable goal; being thin enough. For us, to be thin enough is finally to be good enough.
Every room entered, every street walked involved detailed analysis of the physiques of others, feeling pride and superiority if I was the thinnest, and earth shattering shame and disgust if I was not. Both galvanised my resolve.”
Worse still, many people who suffer with eating disorders simply do not want to get better. The disease does not want to let them get better. The quote goes on:
“My eating disorder gradually robbed me of my happiness, my relationships, my health and my sanity. The insanity is that despite all this I could not stop. I did not want to stop. I was petrified to change. Thinness had become my identity, and starved detachment was my way to cope with my feelings and my life.”
My experience is that sufferers of depression and addiction would bite your hand off for a magic bullet. Alas, the same is not the case for eating disorders, and that is the barbarity of the disease. Yet we know that catching an eating disorder earlier can make all the difference, and debates like this one can dramatically help with awareness and prevention.
Beat’s survey from December and January gathered findings on lived experience of eating disorders from 1,900 people, which showed that four in five people thought that greater public awareness would make them feel more comfortable to talk about their eating disorder, two in three would not feel comfortable talking to their teacher about the issue, two in three would not feel comfortable talking with their line manager, and two in three would not feel comfortable talking with a colleague. More needs to be done to make it feel acceptable do so.
The covid-19 pandemic, and lockdown specifically, contributed to a surge in demand for children and young people’s eating disorder treatment. That is no surprise, given the lack of control in a lockdown. In Q1 of 2021-2022, 3,400 people were treated, compared with 1,900 people in Q1 of 2019-2020. We have seen some recent glimmers of hope from the data on waiting times for children and young people in eating disorder services. Recent data showed that between October and December 2024, 80% of urgent referrals—350 out of 433—to children’s eating disorder services were seen within one week. During the same time period, 81% of routine referrals—2,064 out of 2,251—were seen within four weeks. But more still needs to be done.
I believe that we are starting to see the fruit of the last Government’s investment, as investment in children and young people’s eating disorder services consistently rose each year from 2016, reaching £54 million in 2023-2024. This helped to expand the community eating disorder teams across the country. That was in addition to the £79 million invested through the covid-19 mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan to expand young people’s mental health services, which has enabled 2,000 more children to access eating disorder services.
Furthermore, I remember the Westminster Hall debate the hon. Member for Bath brought to mark Eating Disorders Awareness Week last year. I was pleased to hear the then Conservative Minister, the former Member for Pendle, Andrew Stephenson, announce an additional £3 million funding so that 24 hubs received a share of £8 million in 2024-25. That is more than double the original target of funding 10 hubs, with organisations across England benefiting.
Those were positive steps but the new Government should accelerate that momentum. In October last year, before I was a shadow Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, I called on the then Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), to convene an expert roundtable to discuss eating disorders, given the challenges faced by Governments in tackling the issue. Although the Minister at that time did not commit to it, he stated the following:
“When we were in opposition we gave support to the then Government, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do everything we can to support people who have eating disorders and to get the right provision and support at the right time for those people who need it.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 191WH.]
I renew the question to the Minister today. Will he convene a cross-party roundtable of experts and campaigners? Will he also commit to a national eating disorder strategy, as requested by the APPG report?
Since taking office, the Government have consistently reaffirmed their commitment to children’s and young people’s mental health. However, progress is unclear. I would like an update from the Minister on a couple of key tangible commitments made in the Labour manifesto. First, Labour promised to recruit 8,500 new mental health staff. Will the Minister tell us how many extra mental health staff have been recruited since the Government took office, and how many will be targeted for eating disorders?
Labour’s manifesto also promised
“access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, so every young person has access to early support to address problems before they escalate.”
That builds on work by the Conservative Government to have mental health support teams in 35% of schools by the end of 2023, which was achieved, and to be across all schools by 2024. Of course, the election punctuated that. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made on that commitment? What assurances can he provide to eating disorder services, given that spending on mental health is projected to reduce as a proportion of overall spending in 2025-26, which was announced in last week’s written statement?
Finally, I want to repeat the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asked the Health Secretary at oral questions in February:
“Will he back Beat’s call for broader access to intensive community and day treatment for those with eating disorders—there are limited places currently—and set out a timetable in which that will be delivered?”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 165.]
Although I was pleased to hear the Health Secretary recognise the importance of the issues, further details from the Minister would be helpful. To conclude, although there is a long road to go in preventing eating disorders and supporting those who suffer, I live in hope that
“Healing doesn’t mean the damage never existed. It means the damage no longer controls your life.”
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your maiden chairship today, Mr Stuart. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate and raising this important topic. I know that, as a Member of this House and chair of the APPG on eating disorders, she has been a doughty champion for those living with eating disorders, their families and supporters. I am also grateful to other hon. Members for their valuable contributions, many of which were deeply personal and profoundly moving. I pay tribute to hon. Members for making those contributions.
I share the desire of the hon. Member for Bath to improve the lives of people affected by an eating disorder. Raising awareness of eating disorders and improving treatment services is a key priority for the Government, and a vital part of our work to improve mental health services. We know that living with an eating disorder can be utterly devastating, not just for those battling the condition but their loved ones and those who witness their struggle. We know that eating disorders can affect people of any age, gender, ethnicity or background. However, we also know that recovery is possible, and access to the right treatment and support can be lifechanging, as we have heard today.
Although record investment and progress has improved access to eating disorder services, the reality is clear: demand has surged, especially since the pandemic, outpacing the growth in capacity. We must do more to ensure that everyone who needs support can get it without delay.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister is making a powerful point. Demand is surging, yet it seems that investment from ICBs is going to fall. How can that be possible, and how is it morally acceptable?
Stephen Kinnock
National funding has increased over the years, as the hon. Lady will know. The question is whether that funding channels through to ICBs. The Government’s view is that ICBs are best placed to make decisions as close as possible to the communities that they serve and to target and, if necessary, reallocate funding accordingly. As a Government, we are constantly trying to get the balance right between setting frameworks and targets and ensuring that those are being met, while also ensuring that ICBs are not being micromanaged from the centre. We do not think it is right that people sitting in Whitehall or Westminster micromanage what is going on at a local level. We are absolutely clear that every ICB must meet its targets, while also being clear that it is up to the ICB to take decisions as close as possible to the communities that they serve.
Sadly, we have seen the prevalence of eating disorders in children and young people sharply increase since 2017. In 2023, NHS England published follow-up results to its survey on the mental health of children and young people. The report found that the prevalence of eating disorders in 17 to 19-year-olds rose from 0.8% in 2017 to 12.5% in 2023. Unfortunately, we are also seeing the prevalence of eating disorders rising among adults. The 2019 health survey for England showed that 16% of adults over 16 screened positive for a possible eating disorder. The figures do not mean that the individual had a confirmed eating disorder, but they present a worrying situation that we must address by continuing to promote both awareness and early intervention.
The surge in demand has inevitably made meeting our waiting time targets more challenging. However, our services and clinicians, backed by new funding, are supporting more people than ever before. These services are changing and saving lives. As hon. Members will know, we have kept in place the access and waiting time standard for children and young people who are referred with eating disorder issues. This sets a 95% target for children with urgent cases to begin treatment within one week, and for children with routine cases to start treatment within four weeks.
Figures released last month show that although the number of referrals and demand for services has begun to stabilise during the past year, the number of children entering treatment reached a record high of 2,954 last quarter. This shows that the extra funding is enabling services to begin to meet the extra pressures caused by the pandemic. Similarly, the number of children entering treatment within the target time has reached a record high. Of the 2,954 children entering treatment last quarter, 2,414 were able to access that treatment within the one-week urgent target or the four-week routine target—a rate 81.7%. That is the highest figure recorded since NHS England began collecting that data in 2021.
However, we recognise that there is still far more to be done to ensure that patients with eating disorders can access treatment at the right time. The hon. Member for Bath rightly focused the debate on the importance of awareness. Raising awareness of eating disorders is the first step towards early intervention to prevent the devastating impacts that eating disorders can have on people’s lives. To support this, NHS England is currently refreshing guidance on children and young people’s eating disorders.
The refreshed guidance will highlight the importance of awareness and early recognition of eating disorders in schools, colleges, primary care and broader children and young people’s mental health services. A number of colleagues asked when that guidance will be published; my officials are working hard with specialists on that, and it will be published later this year.
The existing mental health support teams, supplemented by the specialist mental health professionals that we will be providing access to in every school in England, will support school staff to raise awareness and identify children and young people showing potential early signs of an eating disorder. Through these interventions, children and young people can be given early support and help to address problems before they escalate.
Community-based early support hubs for children and young people aged 11 to 25 also play a key role in providing early support for young people’s mental health and wellbeing. Early support hubs provide open-access drop-in mental health services that assist children and young people with a range of issues, such as eating disorders, at an early stage without the need for a referral or doctor’s appointment.
I am pleased to say that this year, thousands more young people will receive support with their mental health, thanks to £7 million of new funding for 24 existing community-based early support hubs to expand their current offer. That funding will deliver 10,000 more interventions such as group sessions, counselling therapies and specialist support over the next 12 months. Looking forward, we are also committed to rolling out open-access young futures hubs in communities. This national network is expected to bring local services together and deliver support for young people facing mental health challenges, including support for those with eating disorders.
We should also be concerned about the widespread availability of harmful online material that promotes eating disorders, suicide and self-harm, which can easily be accessed by people who may be vulnerable. We have been clear that the Government’s priority is the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act, so that those who use social media, especially children, can benefit from its wide-reaching protections as soon as possible. Our focus is on keeping young people safe while they benefit from the latest technology. By the summer, robust new protections for children will be enforced through the Act to protect them from harmful content and ensure that they have an age-appropriate experience online.
It is right to focus on awareness and early intervention, but we know that some people simply need access to high-quality treatment in order to get better. A key priority of this Government is therefore to expand community-based services to treat eating disorders, so that people can be treated earlier and closer to home. NHS England is working to increase the capacity of community-based eating disorder services. By improving care in the community, the NHS can improve outcomes and recovery, reduce rates of relapse, prevent children’s eating disorders continuing into adulthood and, if admission is required as a last resort, reduce the length of time that people have to stay in hospital.
I am pleased to say that funding for children and young people’s eating disorder services has increased, rising from £46.7 million in 2017-18 to a planned £101 million in 2024-25. With this extra funding, we can focus on enhancing the capacity of community eating disorder teams across the country. We are also committed to providing an extra 8,500 new mental health workers across child and adult mental health services to cut waiting times and ensure that people can access treatment and support earlier. Through the 10-year health plan, this Government will overhaul the NHS and ensure that those with mental health needs, including those living with eating disorders, are given the support that they need.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bath about accurate recording of deaths to understand the extent to which eating disorders and other factors have caused or contributed to deaths. This matter is being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.
Hon. Members also raised concerns about BMI. It is not right that any individual is being refused treatment based on their weight or BMI alone. National guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is clear that single measures such as BMI or duration of illness should not be used to determine whether to offer treatment for an eating disorder. I am ready to receive any representations from colleagues who have evidence that that is happening, and I would be happy to raise that with the appropriate channels.
John McDonnell
I raised with the Minister the reform of disability benefits, which will have implications for sufferers and their carers. My understanding is that the universal credit health element is to be denied to those under the age of 22. In addition, it will be halved and then frozen, and the PIP criteria are changing. As I said, I simply want the Minister to check with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions what the implications are for sufferers of these conditions and their carers. We need specific action to protect them in the consultation; otherwise, people who are already suffering financially as a result of such conditions—particularly when the whole family supports the sufferer—will be further harmed.
Stephen Kinnock
I will follow up on those points and write to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Green Paper is out for consultation. Although the Government have made decisions about some measures, we are consulting and engaging on a number of others. It is very important that we see all the issues that he raises in the round, and I will follow them up with colleagues, particularly in the DWP, and write to him.
I again thank the hon. Member for Bath for raising this important issue and for her tireless efforts in this House to raise awareness of eating disorders. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and moving contributions on behalf of their constituents and, in some cases, their loved ones. One person afflicted by an eating disorder is one too many, so the Government will strain every sinew to combat this profoundly debilitating condition.
Wera Hobhouse
First, thank you Mr Stuart for chairing your first Westminster Hall debate so well; you kept us in order and on time. I thank all Members for their wide-ranging, thoughtful and moving contributions. Sharing our stories can raise awareness, but it takes a lot of courage. As we have heard, eating disorders do not discriminate on the basis of age, gender or background. Although they disproportionately affect young women, it is important that we keep an eye on young men—we heard very good contributions on that.
Eating disorders are a national emergency—I reiterate that even after hearing the Minister’s response. Although some things might be improving, as I said at the beginning, I have been here for six years and, on the whole, things have got worse, not better.
We have heard about the Minister’s sharp elbows, and we have heard that there is hope. This debate is an annual event, and I hope that next year I am able to come here and say that the situation has got better, not worse. We owe it to all sufferers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, it is a moral outrage that we have continued to let the situation deteriorate. It has to get better. Next year, I want to be able to say that we have made real progress. The APPG and I want to work with the Government to make the situation better. Campaigners are there to help; we need to work together. I hope that it does not get worse for another year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered eating disorder awareness.
Access to Dentistry: Somerset
(1 day, 3 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
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I will call Anna Sabine to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister—that is often forgotten. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to dentistry in Somerset.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My grandfather might not have been a toolmaker, but he was dentist. He worked near Slough, and as a child I loved visits to the dentist because we got to play in the electric chair and dissolve bright pink mouthwash tablets in plastic cups, and we always got a Lambrusco and lemonade afterwards, which was of course entirely appropriate.
That regularity of dental treatment means that, at 45, I am lucky enough to have no fillings at all, and I am not particularly scared of dentists. Many children growing up today in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset are not so lucky: one in five children in Somerset has tooth decay by the time they are five. Although we know that difficulty in accessing an NHS dentist is a nationwide challenge, data reveals that the south-west is particularly neglected. The most recent Office for National Statistics data shows that it has the worst access problems of all regions in England, with 99% of people without a dentist failing to secure the NHS treatment they needed in the last month.
Furthermore, only 32% of adults in Somerset saw an NHS dentist in the two years to June 2024, which is much lower than the national average of 40%. The picture for children in Somerset is equally shocking: only 42% were seen by a dentist in the year to June 2024, well below the national average of 55%, and way below pre-covid averages.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend’s point about the south-west is absolutely right. Some 217 visits per 100,000 to accident and emergency are for dental-related issues, compared with 154 for the next highest region. So the south-west is a real outlier, and not in a good way. Does my hon. Friend think that that is having a detrimental effect on hospitals and A&E?
Anna Sabine
Yes, I absolutely agree, and I will talk later about how poor access to dentistry impacts other parts of the health sector.
Yesterday, I was lucky enough to visit a local primary school in Frome, along with a friend who is a dentist. We started with an assembly about the many superpowers the mouth has, in which I was delighted to be given the leading role of saliva. Then we moved on to taking two reception classes through a supervised toothbrushing session. The school is part of the Government’s supervised toothbrushing scheme, an initiative I welcome. Sadly, of the 30 children in the room, 10 did not have consent for the toothbrushing—some because forms had not been returned, and some because there was a parental objection to the activity or to the use of fluoride. To ensure that they did not feel left out, my dentist friend played a game where they counted their teeth instead. She said that, based on what she could see from that game, that group of 10 children had 50 obviously decayed teeth, and one child had at least 10 teeth that would need to be removed under general anaesthetic. Those children were four and five years old. Although the scheme overall is to be welcomed, I hope consideration will be given to having an opt-out rather than an opt-in, to ensure that the children who most need the scheme are actually benefiting.
Somerset used to be well above the national average on access to dentistry. As recently as 2018, 55% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in a two-year period, compared with 50% nationally.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is right to highlight the issue affecting children but also adults. Does she agree that the news that some pensioners are carrying out their own barbaric dentistry should send shockwaves about the affordability and accessibility of NHS dentistry? Does she also agree that there is a need for immediate intervention in each trust area, whether in Somerset, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Anna Sabine
Yes, there are certainly some horror stories about tooth removal. It does beg the question as to why NHS dental services in Somerset and the wider south-west have deteriorated in the last seven years. It seems to me that that is symptomatic of a lack of investment in the region, in terms of not only health and social care but withdrawn levelling-up funding and diverted rural England prosperity funding.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about the need for investment, and much of that will be in training new dentists. Does she therefore agree that it is baffling that a brand-new dental school at the University of East Anglia could be delayed by a full year because the Treasury refuses to release funding until a month after the deadline for UCAS course listings, and that another year’s delay is unacceptable for her constituents in Somerset and mine in North Norfolk?
Anna Sabine
That sounds very frustrating, particularly when, as we are seeing, there are so many crises in our dental services.
A constituent emailed me in February to say that four weeks previously her husband, who is in his late forties, had had a massive stroke. He collapsed into the sink in the kitchen and hit his face on the taps, breaking his teeth. He was discharged from hospital on 14 February, but cannot speak, is partially paralysed, needs continuing care, rehabilitation and adjustment, and is suffering dental pain. He is not registered with an NHS dentist and cannot afford private dental care, so they called 111 and, after four calls, drove to an appointment where the dentist was given just 30 minutes to treat only one tooth, which he had to remove. My constituents will have to call 111 again to get treatment for the next tooth. The husband needs dentures, is on soft foods and is still in pain. As that case shows, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) pointed out, a failure to invest now in dentistry not only causes more pain for the individual, but gets more expensive and adds to pressure on other areas of the NHS in the longer term.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
A constituent in Mansfield, who works in a local NHS practice, wrote to me to suggest that dental therapists, hygienists and other professionals could be utilised a lot more effectively to deal with capacity. Does the hon. Member agree that to free up more appointments, such as those her constituent needs, and to ensure that people get better and more timely care overall, it would be better to utilise the skills of other people in the dental profession, in the south-west and throughout the UK?
Anna Sabine
Yes. That is one of the things I have talked about extensively—or rather I have been talked at extensively by my dentist friend about the way in which we manage staff and who does which bits of work in dentistry. It is really important that the Government engage with the British Dental Association about that to understand some of the complexity of how the contracts are working at the moment and what could be improved.
If we do not deal with people’s dental pain, we get more pressure on the NHS in the long term: cancers go undiagnosed, and people are forced to use 111 or A&E. It cannot make sense that people have to use 111 to organise their dentistry if they do not have an NHS dentist. People are simply being pushed around the system instead of being treated and instead of illness being prevented. I absolutely understand and appreciate the financial situation the Government inherited from the Conservative Administration, but I am concerned that not enough is happening fast enough on dentistry.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The previous Government tried to tackle this problem by offering golden hellos to dentists in rural areas to encourage the uptake of NHS dentistry, but in reality that did not work. What we really need the new Government to do is to advance at pace with renegotiating the dental contract. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new Government can get on with that rapidly, we might see an improvement in rural areas and, indeed, the whole UK?
Anna Sabine
I do agree. Golden hellos are all very well, but the challenge—as I hear from dentists in my constituency—is that once dentists leave NHS dentistry and go into the private sector, which more and more are doing, nothing will ever get them back again. That is a loss that we do not recover from.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate. Does she agree that Somerset benefits enormously from Bridgwater & Taunton College, where nurses and midwives are trained? Will she join me in asking the Minister whether dental hygienists, and in due course dental students from the University of Bristol Dental Hospital, might also train there and provide a service to the whole of Somerset?
Anna Sabine
I was not actually aware that we had those facilities there, and I am happy to know more about them. Yes, I would certainly join any call for more dentistry skills to be brought into the Somerset area.
The Health Secretary made a point of meeting the British Dental Association on his first day in office, but the BDA tells me that there has been little follow-up. Could the Minister confirm whether the Government have now entered into formal negotiations to reform the dental contract? If they have not, when do they expect to do so? I am sure the Minister will rightly highlight in his reply the roll-out of the 700,000 extra urgent appointments.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The 700,000 new urgent dental appointments cover only a third of the need for urgent care, and are being funded by simply recycling underspends in an already stretched budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we actually need in Somerset is new money to invest in NHS dentistry, as promised at the election?
Anna Sabine
I totally agree. I was coming on to say something similar: the roll-out of the 700,000 extra urgent appointments is a positive start, but it covers less than a third of the need for urgent care appointments. The Government must put more money into dentistry so that people can get the help they need.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The area around Minehead, in my constituency, has the smallest number of dentists in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the area is both rural and coastal presents a unique set of problems because of deprivation and neglect, which means that the dental desert there is felt very acutely indeed?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree. Given the time limitations, I have not come on to discuss the challenges that places such as Somerset face due to their rurality, including the difficulties in getting to services, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The BDA’s asks and policy proposals are clear: the Government must invest in dental services and secure a long-term funding settlement for NHS dentistry that keeps pace with demand, and budgets allocated to NHS dentistry must be ringfenced. The BDA also agrees with the Liberal Democrats that NHS dental practices must be offered relief on the national insurance contributions rise announced in the most recent Budget. The Lib Dems believe that such relief should be extended to the wider health and social care sector, including GP surgeries, care homes, hospitals and pharmacies.
Parents and families across Somerset are crying out for extra support with accessing affordable and reliable dentistry, and access to an NHS dentist should be guaranteed to everyone needing urgent and emergency care. To catch up with the national average, Somerset needs extra investment, and it needs it quickly.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the dental desert that is Somerset and to how keenly it is felt. Does she agree that many families have to choose between putting food on the table and paying to take their child to the dentist? We can expose the reality of the dental desert through more research, which I will be carrying out in Taunton and Wellington very soon.
Anna Sabine
We can absolutely carry out more research, and I urge Members to go and talk to their local school teachers. Yesterday, I found that teachers in Frome have a very clear understanding of why certain children are not going to the dentist. Sometimes that might be down to parental choice, and it is really important that we understand why that is happening as well as why there is not sufficient access to dentistry.
To catch up with the national average, Somerset needs extra investment, and it needs it quickly. We need more NHS practices that are financially viable and exempt from the NICs rise, and we need more dentists who are remunerated and well treated in their work. We cannot let Somerset slip further and further away from the national average, which is already a low bar, and create more pain, misery and costs for generations to come.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again this morning, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate on access to dentistry in Somerset.
We know that there are challenges in accessing NHS dentistry across the country, with some areas facing acute challenges. Put simply, too many people are struggling to find an NHS appointment. In the two years up to June 2024, just 31% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in Somerset’s integrated care board, which covers the hon. Lady’s constituency, compared with 40% across England. In the year to June 2024, only 42% of children in Somerset ICB were seen by an NHS dentist, compared with 56% across England. The fact that the number of adults and children in Somerset ICB accessing an NHS dentist is even lower than the already struggling rate across England is concerning.
Somerset is facing significant workforce pressures, and there are not enough NHS dentists available to do the job. As of March 2024, there were 334 vacancies in the south-west for full-time equivalent NHS general dentists. The 29% vacancy rate is the highest of any English region.
It is a shocking fact that the No. 1 reason for children aged five to nine being admitted to hospital in our country is to have their teeth removed, with a primary diagnosis of tooth decay. It is a truly Dickensian state of affairs.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
We have heard about the dental desert in Somerset. Stockton in my constituency has also been branded a dental desert. I welcome the 4,000 new appointments that the Government have granted for Stockton North and the surrounding area. However, given the urgency that he has described, particularly for children’s health, I ask the Minister whether the Government are taking any measures to accelerate the roll-out of those appointments.
Stephen Kinnock
We will absolutely ensure that integrated care boards are delivering to the target they have been set. If we see any evidence of slowing down or backsliding, we will certainly intervene to ensure that appointments are accelerated. I would also be more than happy to receive representations from my hon. Friend if he feels that performance in his ICB is not delivering.
The state of NHS dentistry in Somerset, and the nation as a whole, is simply unacceptable and it has to change.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I welcome the action that the Government are taking to fix our dentistry crisis. In my constituency, only two dental practices accept adult patients, and vast swathes of the rural areas have no practice at all. Will the Minister set out how the Government’s plans will support my constituents to access the dental care that they need?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend puts her finger on the fundamental problem, which is that the NHS dental contract simply does not incentivise dentists to do NHS work. That is the fundamental reason why we are in this bizarre situation where demand for NHS dentistry is going through the roof, yet there is a consistent underspend in the NHS contract. It is a classic example of a false economy. The Conservatives thought they were being terribly clever by structuring a contract in a way they thought would deliver value for money, but in fact, it simply failed to incentivise dentists to do NHS work and they drifted more and more into purely private sector work. That is the very definition of a false economy.
Anna Sabine
I just draw the Minister back to my specific point about whether he can confirm that he is having discussions with the British Dental Association. The association agrees that the contract is wrong, and it wants to speak urgently to the Government about how it can be amended.
Stephen Kinnock
I am pleased to confirm that I am meeting the BDA in the coming days. The negotiations are moving forward. There is no perfect payment system, and there is a need to get the balance right between ensuring that we have a viable system that does not deliver underspends in the NHS contract, which is absurd, and that we deliver as much NHS dentistry as possible to the communities and people who need it. That is a complex process and it will take some time. The Government have taken intermediate measures, such as the 700,000 urgent appointments and supervised toothbrushing, which we will work on at pace over the course of the coming financial year while also working on a radical overhaul of the contract.
By the time I came into government, the Nuffield Trust was describing the state of NHS dentistry as
“at its most perilous point in its 75-year history.”
As of March 2024, there are over 36,000 dentists registered with the General Dental Council in England, yet there are fewer than 11,000 full-time equivalent dentists working in the NHS.
Sir Ashley Fox
I understand that at least 100 Ukrainian dentists in this country are unable to practise with the NHS because they are waiting to take examinations. Can the Minister do anything to expedite their ability to practise in this country?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree. Two big things need to happen. First, the General Dental Council needs to do more to get more exams in place for those very well-qualified dentists. Of course, they have to pass the British exam. We cannot have people practising in Britain who have not passed that exam, but the availability of the exam has been too limited and that needs to change. The other thing is provisional registration. Some work can be done to expedite the registration of an international dentist, but more needs to be done on that as well. I will meet the head of the General Dental Council shortly, and I will convey those messages to him.
Recruitment and retention issues are not limited to dentists; there are difficulties across the whole dental team, including dental nurses, hygienists, therapists and technicians. In the past five years, there has been a 15% reduction in courses of dental treatment being delivered across England, and 28% of adults in England—a staggering 13 million people—have an unmet need for NHS dentistry. As a result, we hear too many stories about people who are unable to access the care they need, and some horrific accounts of DIY dentistry that nobody should have to resort to.
Dentistry rightly receives a lot of attention because of its dismal state, and I am grateful to the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee for their interest in the previous Government’s dentistry recovery plan. It is evident that the plan did not go far enough.
Richard Foord
The Minister talks about the previous Government’s dental recovery plan, and part of that was to impose a firmer ringfence on dentistry spending so that there was not an underspend that was reallocated elsewhere. The previous Government tasked NHS England with collecting monthly returns from ICBs to establish spending as against the allocation. Now that NHS England is being scrapped, will we still see that monitoring of ICBs to ensure that the spending matches the allocation?
Stephen Kinnock
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the ringfence, but in a way, ringfencing addresses the symptoms, rather than the cause, of the problem. The fundamental cause of the problem is the amateurish way in which the previous Government set up the NHS dentistry contract so that it does not incentivise dentists to do NHS work. That is what leads them to drift off. In a sense, we can do all the ringfencing we like, but if the workforce that we need is not incentivised to do the work that we need them to do, we are going to have that problem, because they vote with their feet. That is why the radical overhaul of the dentistry contract is the key point. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that once we have got a contract that works, we must ensure that every penny that is committed to NHS dentistry is spent on NHS dentistry, rather than the absurd situation that we have now, in which we constantly have underspends in the NHS dentistry contract while demand for NHS dentistry goes through the roof. It is a truly bizarre situation.
I return to the subject of the dentistry recovery plan. The new patient premium, introduced by the previous Government, aimed to increase the number of new patients seen, but that has not happened. In reality, since the introduction of the previous Government’s plan, there has been a 3% reduction in the number of treatments delivered to new patients. It is clear to this Government that stronger action is needed, and we are prepared to act to stop the decay.
Rachel Gilmour
In Minehead, in my constituency, a dental surgery responded to the ICB in October and said that it would provide 12 NHS appointments a week for people who currently do not have a dentist. I have chased that ICB on five occasions, but we still do not have a result. That is 48 appointments a month that my constituents are missing out on. Would the Minister please agree to write a letter, on my constituents’ behalf, to the Somerset ICB?
Stephen Kinnock
We are very keen to ensure that targets are being met, and the ICB clearly needs to ensure that that is happening, so I would be happy to do that. Perhaps the hon. Lady could write to me so that we can get all the facts on the table, then we can take action accordingly.
We will make the difficult decisions necessary to restore NHS dentistry to ensure that patients can access the care that they need, at the best value for taxpayers. Since coming into office, we have focused on implementing new initiatives and stopping the things that are not working. From today, 1 April 2025, the public will see 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments being delivered every year, as we promised in our manifesto. The urgent appointments will be available to NHS patients who are experiencing painful oral health issues, such as infections, abscesses, or cracked or broken teeth. Somerset integrated care board has been asked to deliver 13,498 of those appointments. That is 13,498 more chances for the hon. Lady’s constituents to get the urgent dental support that they need, every single year.
Across the south-west region, there will be 106,776 extra appointments—that is more chances for patients in urgent need of care. However, to have a truly effective dental system, we cannot focus just on those who are already in pain; we must have a system that prioritises prevention. A cornerstone of the Government’s mission to prevent ill health is supporting children to live healthier lives. We want to ease the strain on the NHS and create the healthiest generation of children ever. As colleagues will be aware, too many children are growing up with tooth decay, which is largely preventable. That is why we have invested £11.4 million to roll out a national supervised toothbrushing programme for three to five-year-olds that will reach up to 600,000 children a year in the most deprived areas of England.
The latest data shows that the rate of tooth decay for five-year-olds in Somerset is 20.2%, which is lower than the 22.4% for England but still far too high. We are taking a targeted approach to support those in the most deprived areas, which is why we have been able to allocate £50,000 of funding to Somerset to support around 2,000 three to five-year-olds. Our additional funding will help to secure and expand supervised toothbrushing based on local needs. This is extra resourcing to support targeted work by the local authority and its partners.
I am determined that we will reduce inequalities faced by children living in the most deprived areas, helping them to brush their teeth daily in the nurseries and schools that they attend. Alongside this, we have launched an innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive, which is donating more than 23 million toothbrushes and toothpastes over the next five years. This is of incredible value for the taxpayer, and a fantastic example of how business and Government can work in partnership for the public good.
A strong dentistry system needs a strong workforce. We recognise the incredible work that dentists and dental professionals do, and we know that the current NHS dentistry contract is not fit for purpose. We need to build an NHS system that works for patients and their dentists. A central part of our 10-year plan will be workforce, and we will ensure that we train and provide the staff, technology and infrastructure that the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities. We will publish a refreshed long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service that we will build over the next decade, and to treat patients on time again.
We know that some areas face challenges in recruiting and retaining the dental workforce they need. The golden hello scheme offers 240 dentists a £20,000 joining bonus to work in underserved areas of the country for three years. The recruitment process is well under way, with posts being filled by dentists in these areas as we speak.
Sir Ashley Fox
I ask the Minister to reply to my suggestion that students from the University of Bristol Dental Hospital do some part of their training in Somerset, where they can benefit the population.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. It is an excellent idea, and it is something that we have seen in other parts of the country. If he would care to write to me about that, I would be more than happy to take that issue up.
In the south-west, the golden hello scheme has already led to seven new dentists on the ground delivering NHS dentistry to patients, and a further six have been recruited and are waiting to start their roles. With 64 live adverts across the region, we are confident that the numbers will grow. And, for the first time in more than a decade, we have increased payments for practices training a foundation dentist. We will not stand idly by while the fundamental reforms to the contract are developed. Where we identify opportunities, we will make improvements to the current system when those can increase access and incentivise the workforce to deliver more NHS care.
I am pleased that work to improve access has also been taking place at the local level, and that Somerset ICB is opening three new practices in Wellington, Crewkerne and Chard. Those services will provide much-needed additional capacity in Somerset. The ICB is committed to delivering additional urgent dental appointments and increasing access for residents facing the greatest health inequalities—although I do recognise what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) said about the concerns that she raised.
Fixing our broken dentistry system will not be easy, but I want to reaffirm our commitment to making bold changes and tough decisions to stop the decay and to rebuild the foundations of NHS dentistry. This is an immense challenge—there are no quick fixes and no easy answers—but people in Somerset and across the country deserve better access to dental care, and we are determined to make that a reality. We are committed to rebuilding a system that puts patients first, ensuring that no one is left without the dental care that they need.
Question put and agreed to.
Royal British Legion
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Before I call Dr Luke Evans to move the motion, it will be apparent to everyone that a good number of speakers want to participate. To give fair warning to all Back-Bench speakers, I am afraid we will have to limit you to about two and a half minutes. We will start doing so informally, and if everyone can keep to that, we should be able to get everyone in. If not, we will have to impose a formal time limit.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
The poppy stands tall, with bended head—the perfect personification of honouring our dead. Every year, one of the most iconic flowers is seen and respected across this nation, and it is down to the work of the Royal British Legion. Today, I am honoured and humbled to mark the contributions of the RBL to this country in Parliament. Looking at Hansard for the last time the Royal British Legion was a topic of debate, I had to scroll back to 2013, so it is a pleasure to bring this debate to the House ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, which is just around the corner. I will talk about the role of the RBL nationally, but I particularly want to reflect on my local branch, as its story exemplifies and typifies what is happening up and down the nation to support our veterans and influence people’s heads and hearts. It was Thornton Wilder who said:
“The greatest tribute to the dead is not grief, but gratitude”,
and the RBL embodies that sentiment perfectly.
At this point, I must declare an interest: I have the great privilege to be the president of the Hinckley branch of the Royal British Legion. That is particularly fitting, as I took up the role in 2023, which was the centenary of the formation of Hinckley and district’s Royal British Legion. Who was the first president in 1923? It was the then Conservative and Unionist Member for Bosworth and my predecessor but three, Major Thomas Guy Paget.
In 2023, I talked in the main Chamber about the RBL and the work of local volunteers around Remembrance Sunday, and highlighted the particular work of Elaine Ward, who received a medal from the RBL to commemorate her five decades of service in fundraising for the poppy appeal. I asked the then Leader of the House if we could have a debate on the volunteers who support the RBL. It took some time, but I am pleased to say that we finally secured today’s debate.
I know that Members present will be aware of the fantastic contributions that the RBL makes to all our communities nationally, but it would be remiss of me not to talk about some of its great work and the history behind it. The Royal British Legion is the largest armed forces charity in the UK. It was formed in May 1921 to care for those who were suffering as a result of their service during the first world war, and brought together four national organisations for ex-servicemen. Of those who came back from the first world war, 1.75 million suffered some form of disability, and half of them were permanently disabled, so the legion had important work to do right from its beginning. The first ever poppy appeal was held in 1921 and raised over £106,000, and it is a proud tradition that carries on 100 years later.
In 1971, the Queen declared that the organisation would be granted royal status and become the Royal British Legion, and the charity now has 180,000 members and 110,000 volunteers. In the past year alone, the RBL has awarded over £18 million-worth of grants, helping thousands of veterans and families through the cost of living crisis. It has provided expert financial guidance, legal representation and essential aid during hardship, securing £39 million in war pension awards.
Beyond financial support, the RBL is a lifeline for wellbeing. The Battle Back Centre in Shropshire has empowered hundreds of veterans through recovery programmes, and its six homes, including specialist dementia services, ensure dignity and comfort for those who have served. Community is at the heart of the RBL’s mission. Whether it is through independent living services, telephone buddies for the lonely or the 96 global branches that support service personnel worldwide, the RBL is always there.
The RBL’s unwavering commitment reminds us that we owe our veterans more than gratitude; we owe them action. Possibly the greatest action that the RBL facilitates is that of a nation remembering. Remembrance is the active process of keeping the past alive in our present. It is so important, now more than ever, that we continue to educate the next generation about the first and second world wars, and the incredible sacrifices made by so many to ensure our freedoms today. Why? As the last surviving veterans of the second world war become fewer and fewer—only a few weeks ago the last surviving battle of Britain pilot, John “Paddy” Hemingway, passed away—we must not let that knowledge of the impacts of war fade away. Future generations must be reminded; as the famous quote says, “Lest we forget.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is imperative at this stage, as that generation is unfortunately dying off, that the younger generation, particularly in schools, are told of the immense sacrifice that that previous generation made and the freedoms that we all owe to people like them?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is spot-on; it is pivotal to ensure that the story is continued all the way through, not only in our nation but across the world. He leads me nicely on to my next point, because the Royal British Legion education programme, which will bring stories from the second world war into classrooms using educational resources and digital capsules of VE Day stories, is under creation. The RBL is honouring the sacrifices of those who came before us while ensuring that their legacy shapes our future. Of course, it is not just world wars that we need to continue to remember but more recent conflicts, too: Korea; the Falklands; Northern Ireland; Bosnia and Kosovo; and the Gulf deployments in place like Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan.
Nationally, the RBL’s impact is undeniable—distinct, poignant, respectful and powerful—but an organisation is only as strong as the sum of its parts, so I turn to the Royal British Legion branches in Hinckley and Bosworth. I am privileged to have the following RBL branches in my constituency: Barwell and Earl Shilton; Burbage; Market Bosworth; Ashby-de-la-Zouch; and Ibstock.
The Hinckley branch is branch No. 96, being the 96th legion to be created since the Royal British Legion was formed in 1921. I know that it is continually active and proactive today, and is managed by some fantastic volunteers, not least the chairman, Lloyd Bagshaw, who is sitting in the Public Gallery today. He is ably supported by Lee Bushill, the vice chair; Mick Nolan, the treasurer; Kiah Brown, the secretary; Ian Walker and Troy Phillips, who are both standard bearers; Dave England, the parade marshal; Lew Snooks, the deputy parade marshal; and the aforementioned Elaine Ward, who is the poppy appeal organiser.
The Hinckley branch has organised numerous public events to commemorate key anniversaries from the Falklands to Korea and D-day. A key focus of the branch’s three-year plan is tackling social isolation, which affects veterans of all ages and is often linked to mental health concerns. The branch’s initiatives include visiting care homes to run accessible activities, participation in coffee mornings and breakfasts for veterans, teaching in schools, and providing support to bereaved families. Families may also request the branch’s standard bearers to attend services and pay homage to the fallen and to veterans. I can only imagine what that must mean to the families affected; it is a powerful demonstration of the community spirit that exists among the armed forces. Fundraising remains vital and the branch’s poppy appeal consistently raises over £40,000 annually. That is a significant total, which shows the perpetual gratitude and benevolent support of the district’s community.
In summing up the contributions of my local RBL branch, I will quote Lloyd Bagshaw himself:
“The fundamental keystone to the foundation of these success falls at the feet of the small cohort of passionate volunteers that assist the Branch in all its activities; primarily during the Poppy Appeal period each year. Many of these volunteer fund raisers are not even Legion Members, they merely have the desire and wish to support the appeal. Without such support and enthusiasm from the community, the Branch and indeed the Legion as an organisation, could not survive. The breadth of my gratitude and sincere thanks to these men and women have no limit.”
Lloyd asked me to single out one particular member of the branch, Mr Ian Walker, who he described as having:
“a passion and commitment to the branch that goes above and beyond.”
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to do exactly that.
Now, it is said that
“A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions”—
and none more so than the current chairman of Hinckley branch, Lloyd Bagshaw. Other members of the branch tell me that
“typically, of Lloyd, he has omitted, what we all consider to be, a primary nomination—himself."
Several years ago, the branch was facing an uncertain future. Membership had dwindled, activities were scarce and survival was in doubt. Seven years ago, Lloyd joined and saw not the challenges but potential, and without hesitation he took action. With more than 40 years of service in the Royal British Legion, Lloyd was elected chairman unopposed—a testament to the trust placed in him. From day one, he worked tirelessly to restore connections, rebuild relationships and revitalise the branch. His efforts strengthened ties with the Royal Naval Association, St Mary’s church and the local council, creating a support network that transformed the organisation.
Today, the branch is thriving. Events are planned, awareness is high and the community presence is firmly established—all thanks to Lloyd’s leadership. His dedication even uncovered a forgotten milestone, the branch’s centenary, in 2023. Most telling of all, membership has more than doubled under his stewardship, now proudly standing at 87. In the words of one branch member,
“Simply put, we are only here today due to his hard work, selflessness, commitment and enthusiasm.”
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. He is absolutely right that branches are at the heart of the Royal British Legion, but so are the clubs. A number of clubs in my constituency, especially the Hindhead club in Beacon Hill, are under significant financial pressure due to increasing costs—not least, I am afraid, because the Royal British Legion is the landlord and is trying to put up the rent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be great if the Royal British Legion nationally and the Government came together to preserve the clubs as well as the branches?
Dr Evans
The service contribution in the community is really important. The role an MP can play, as my hon. Friend no doubt does, is to pull everyone together to have these discussions and see whether a solution can be found. That veteran support is what we all crave in our constituencies, and I am pleased to see him championing his club today.
Turning to the national future and support for our veterans, I was pleased and proud of the last Government’s support for veterans. To give a brief overview, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was set up in 2019 and the former Prime Minister appointed a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to his Cabinet to report to him directly, with the aim of taking on the challenges faced by our nation’s veterans. Further work by the previous Government included a veterans’ strategy action plan, trauma network and health innovation fund. Therefore, it would be great to hear from the Minister today what steps the current Government are taking to build on the progress made by the previous Government to support the legion’s current priorities.
Those include: strengthening the armed forces covenant duty to include UK and devolved Governments and to cover all policy matters; ensuring that all public bodies ask individuals whether they or immediate family members have served in HM armed forces; ensuring that military compensation is never treated as an income source by means tests for welfare benefit; introducing a national protocol to provide consistent access to public services for armed forces’ families, including increased special educational needs and disabilities support for service children; and removing barriers for families of non-UK service personnel to stay in the UK, waiving fees for indefinite leave to remain and the minimum income requirement. Perhaps the Minister could supply reflections on those issues, as the RBL has raised them specifically.
Time is short; this speech is long. I thought it apt to close this speech simply by reflecting on what happens on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour. There are times when no words can do justice; silence is the only response that speaks the loudest—felt, felt but not forgotten.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am very grateful to the hon. Member. I remind everyone to continue to stand if they wish to contribute and that, if they stick to two and half minutes, we will try to get everybody in.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for his thoughtful contribution. I put on the record my thanks to my local Royal British Legion branch in Lower Stratton, and to Pallbearer Jeff, who is an amazing guy.
I want to talk about why the Royal British Legion is important, as opposed to what it does. I am a proud veteran, as an ex-member of the armed forces in 1st Battalion the Rifles. One of the things that comes to mind when I think about what the Royal British Legion does is building a sense of community. I am not saying that people do not understand unless they have been in the military, but it is a job like no other, and it really becomes part of you. One of the saddest days of my life was when I was leaving, driving out of Beachley barracks, and knowing that I was not going to have that sense of community and belonging again. It was really quite emotional.
Until I visited my local branch, I did not really pick up on the fact that people do not necessarily have that community and that outreach in a place where they can go and talk to other veterans. The Royal British Legion does that fantastically. We see people leave the armed forces and lose their sense of purpose, their ability, their person and their identity. It is so important that they have a place where they can gather together.
I am short on time, so I will have to cut down my speech. I thank all the people out there who are putting this together. Day in, day out they are out there looking after the veterans, raising money, offering support with housing and being a friendly ear for people to talk to. I thank everyone in the Royal British Legion for all that they do. I am really looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because I know he is working so hard on championing veterans. I cannot think of anyone better placed to be doing that, to be honest, because he gets it. I thank all Members for being here and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. We gather today to recognise an organisation that exemplifies the values of service, sacrifice and solidarity—principles that are timeless yet often overlooked in our fast-paced world. The Royal British Legion stands as a testimony to those principles, and I wholeheartedly endorse its mission and work.
We owe a profound debt of gratitude to the men and women of our British armed forces, who courageously step towards danger while others step away. Providing them with essential assistance is not merely our duty: it should be our priority. The transition to civilian life poses significant challenges that affect their physical health, mental wellbeing and career prospects. The Royal British Legion offers critical support to address these challenges, honouring the dignity and respect that our British heroes rightfully deserve.
Sadly, too many families face the void left by the ultimate sacrifice, and many support loved ones dealing with lifelong physical and mental health traumas. It is our solemn duty to remember, and the Royal British Legion ensures that that duty is fulfilled. From poppy appeals to war memorials and remembrance events, it safeguards our promise that these sacrifices will not be forgotten.
Yet there is more we can do. It is imperative that we strengthen the armed forces covenant, to ensure that all devolved Governments of the United Kingdom are united in support. Public bodies must maintain comprehensive records of those who have served, and their families, to adequately address their needs. Military compensation should rightly be exempt from means-testing for welfare benefits. We need a UK-wide protocol to ensure that veterans have proper access to public services, and that their children receive appropriate special needs and disability support. Additionally, all obstacles to non-UK service personnel staying in the UK should be removed, including by waiving fees for indefinite leave to remain and minimum income requirements. These things should be entitlements, not merely goals. We stand with the Royal British Legion in striving for this.
It is with a bit of sadness that I say that the Royal British Legion hall in Bangor, which is now a city, is set to close due to financial pressures. Will the Government look into how they could help Royal British Legion halls in future?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate, and pay tribute to the RBL volunteers and staff across the country: they offer help and support wherever and whenever it is needed, including in my South West Norfolk constituency. Every year we see them in our supermarkets and on our streets, selling millions of poppies not only to raise money but also to provide an opportunity for us all to come together and pay tribute to those who fought for our freedoms and in many cases made the ultimate sacrifice.
I was very proud last October to join the collection in my local supermarket, and I look forward to doing so again later this year. What struck me last year was how many people were coming up and speaking to me and the team about their family member, their friend or their neighbour. They wanted to talk about their service and in many cases their loss, and the RBL gave them that opportunity. I have taken part in numerous charity collections in the past, but never have I experienced so many people not only give money but linger and want to talk and engage. It was a wonderful experience not only talking about loss and grief but very much talking about pride. I encourage anyone who has not done so to take part in an RBL collection. It is a wonderful experience.
The Thetford branch of the RBL in my constituency was one of the first in the whole of the UK to be constituted, back in 1921, and as Mayor of Thetford in 2016 I was very proud to oversee the rededication of the standards and support other local RBL activities. Sadly, like so many organisations, our local RBL in Thetford has fallen on tougher times, and has a limited number of volunteers, but the support is as crucial now as it ever was. I look forward to continuing to support the RBL in my new role as a Member of Parliament. That is necessary because in South West Norfolk, as in other constituencies, we have many military families, including those based at RAF Marham and RAF Feltwell, but also nearby at Honington, Mildenhall and Lakenheath. I look forward to supporting the RBL in the years to come so that it can continue its crucial work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for his commitment to our veterans and the armed forces. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place: the hon. and gallant Member is well known for his service in uniform, but also for his commitment to veterans. We thank him for that and look forward to hearing his contribution later.
The Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland may be small, given its population of 1.9 million, but the heart of the veterans and the fundraisers is massive. That is why the small membership in Northern Ireland raises more than its share of the funds raised in the United Kingdom by the British Legion. Some £40 million was raised and Northern Ireland raised £1.3 million, so in proportion to our size we give, by a large percentage, more to the British Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force through the British Legion and through the poppy appeal than most other areas of the United Kingdom.
The Royal British Legion describes itself as being
“at the heart of a national network looking after our Armed Forces community.”
It provides recovery and rehabilitation services, and expert advice and guidance, to service personnel and their families, as well as campaigning
“to improve the lives of everyone in the Armed Forces community and make sure their voice is heard.”
I should have declared an interest: I am a member of the Royal British Legion Millisle branch, and I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14.5 years as a part-time member. The Royal British Legion clubs in Comber, Newtownards, Ballywalter and Millisle are greatly used by society and community groups and residents associations to carry out training and host events. The legion is a place of solace and of understanding, and a place where people can be signposted to help and support.
It is essential that the Royal British Legion continues to operate in communities throughout this United Kingdom, and to do so it needs more than Government thanks: it needs support. The Royal British Legion issued in a statement in Belfast saying that it is under immense pressure to help veterans with their mental health. It cited the statistic that over the past three years the legion has seen a 44% increase in veterans presenting with complex and mental health needs. I know for a fact that that is a real and valid concern.
Although we have few world war veterans—in the Greyabbey branch that I was in, they are all away now; there was only me left, and I have transferred to the Millisle branch—we have veterans from the Falklands, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, after a 30-year terrorist campaign. They all deserve our thanks and our respect. More importantly, all are deserving of our support, which must begin with an enhancement of help from the Government, as we acknowledge the proven toll of service on mental health. It is no longer a taboo subject, and if we are happy to talk about it, it follows that we are happy to act on it. I know that when the Minister responds, none of us here will be found wanting. I congratulate him.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, as always. I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this incredibly important debate. I will keep my remarks fairly short as I know that many Members want to speak.
I extend my sincere gratitude to the local RBL branches in my constituency that do such great work, including the Wark and district branch, the Corbridge and Dinnington branches, and the Ponteland and district branch. As a young member of the Cubs, I was privileged to carry the banner at the memorial service in Hexham on Remembrance Day. It is one of those moments that has stuck with me. The contribution of all the organisations that take part in commemoration of those who serve really does define constituencies across this country, and particularly many in the north-east.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend mentioned standard bearers, I want to take a moment to recognise Fergus Osborne of Guisborough RBL. He has carried the standard in Guisborough and the surrounding areas for over 30 years, so I thank him for his work. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who have served across our region deserve that kind of recognition?
Joe Morris
I am sure he did far better at carrying than I did when I was a slightly incompetent child. [Laughter.]
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is another organisation that does really important work to commemorate those who died in service to country. I visited St Andrew’s cemetery in the west of Hexham, and was really privileged to see the graves and hear the stories not only of those who had grown up in Hexham and sadly passed away, but of some members of the Free Polish forces who were treated at Hexham hospital during the second world war, as they aided the fight against fascism.
I will bring my remarks to a swift and doubtless welcome end, but before I finish I want to put on the record my thanks to the Prudhoe Armed Forces & Veterans Breakfast Club, the Hexham Armed Forces & Veterans Breakfast Club, Northumberland SSAFA and to Forward Assist and many other local groups throughout the community. I know that many Members present with a military background will be familiar with the Otterburn ranges in my constituency, not just, I am told, for the stellar weather and the beautiful surroundings, but for the place it will hold in many of their hearts.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.
In my constituency, the local Royal British Legion branches of Camberley, Chobham, Normandy, Pirbright and Windlesham have long played a critical role in supporting our community, which has a deep-rooted historical connection to our armed forces. I have personally had the privilege of visiting local RBL branches and taking part in some wonderful events they have organised, including remembrance services, members’ receptions and poppy appeal concerts. I pay particular tribute to some of the people who make all that work possible: Rhona and Michael McCauliffe, Mike Sheard, Tim Beck, Pat Tedder, Patrick Mathé, and Peter Welford are just a handful of the dedicated individuals across the branches in my constituency who have made a remarkable difference to people’s lives.
The Royal British Legion’s legacy is defined not just by events and by charity efforts but by the lives it transforms. One of my constituents, whom I will refer to as Tim—that is not his real name—served multiple tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as undertaking numerous overseas training exercises with the British Army. Much of his service was spent in Germany, where he supported personnel and their families. Like so many who served, Tim’s challenges did not end when he left the military. He was physically injured during his service in Iraq and was later diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
Thanks to the Royal British Legion, Tim did not have to face those physical or mental challenges alone. Through the personnel recovery centre in Sennelager in Germany and the Battle Back Centre in Shropshire, both sponsored by the Royal British Legion, Tim was given the support he needed to start rebuilding his life. Today Tim is a key member of the recently reestablished Camberley branch of the Royal British Legion, paying forward the help that he once received. He is one of many millions whose lives have been changed and saved by the RBL.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a strong speech. I am proud to represent Glastonbury and Somerton, where RNAS Yeovilton is based. The constituency is home to many veterans and serving personnel, with 11% of households being home to at least one veteran. We have many charities that support our veterans, like RBL Martock, which was formed in 1921, and we also have Service Dogs UK and organisations such as Got Your Six, all of which work to support our veterans. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be closer collaboration between the Government and the charities that support our veterans, to ensure that no veteran is left behind?
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for more closely co-ordinating the different organisations and establishing connections with the Government. Everybody would benefit as a consequence.
The RBL’s work extends far beyond the bespoke care and support that it provides to wounded servicemen and women. As we have heard, its advocacy work supports an extraordinary number of military families and ensures that their needs—from access to GP services to supporting children with special educational needs—are properly met. The RBL has a proud history and legacy spanning 104 years, and it is as relevant today as it was in 1921. With the tragic spectre of war and conflict on the horizon again, I hope it has a long and prosperous future.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
It is our sacred duty to make sure that we never forget the brave men and women who served and gave their lives for our freedom. For over 100 years, the Royal British Legion has done fantastic work not just to continue bearing the torch of remembrance, but to ensure that our veterans and their families are given the support they need. The RBL is the beating heart of the network that looks after our armed forces community.
We all have contact with the Royal British Legion each year when we buy and proudly wear our poppies, but many people might not realise that this is just a fraction of the services it provides. It is the UK’s largest armed forces charity, with 180,000 members, 110,000 volunteers and a network of partners and charities. It provides recovery and rehabilitation services, and expert advice and guidance, to service personnel and their families, as well as campaigning day in, day out to improve the lives of everyone in the armed forces community and make sure that their voice is heard.
In my community, I have repeatedly had the great honour of joining the volunteers from the Edgware branch of the Royal British Legion. All visitors to the Broadwalk shopping centre know about the hard work that such volunteers do when they give up their free time to support our servicemen and women. These volunteers represent the spirit of selflessness to which we should all aspire, and which the Royal British Legion embodies. We all share an obligation to members of our armed forces, who sacrifice so much for us.
The work that the RBL does to support veterans and their families in my constituency cannot be underestimated. There are so many amazing local volunteers who deserve our recognition—unfortunately, too many to name today—but I want to recognise one person: our local branch chair, Maxine Webber, who does so much for our community. She is the living embodiment of the sense of duty, community spirit, energy and pride that the Royal British Legion stands for.
It is right that we have taken time in our parliamentary schedule to give our thanks to the Royal British Legion and everyone who volunteers for it. In fact, it is especially fitting that we are doing so on a warm spring afternoon, when the prospect of buying our poppies in November and joining the Remembrance Day commemorations on a cold winter’s morning feel so far away, because the Royal British Legion works hard all year round. It represents all that is great about our armed forces and Britain. Its work neither stops nor ends on 11 November, so it is right that we should think about the RBL, pay our thanks and support it as best we can all year round.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
Mid and east Devon has a very strong veteran community. Although the national average for people who have served is 3.8%, there are 4,616 households in Honiton and Sidmouth with at least one veteran—6.3% of the population. It speaks volumes about Devon’s connections to the armed forces and the duty we all feel to support not just those who have served, but their families. Often it is the family who bring a serviceperson out of the armed forces, but the family are then supported by the Royal British Legion when the veteran is looking for a place in society where they can belong.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The duty of service is often earned by the whole family of service personnel—parents, partners and children who make sacrifices in supporting those who serve their country, who are fearful for them, and who miss time and memories. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work of the Royal British Legion in supporting families is so vital and needs to be recognised?
Richard Foord
Absolutely. I would add that the Royal British Legion is fantastic at bringing in volunteers—people who have not served, but on whom the RBL depends. We have some really strong local branches in Cullompton, Honiton, Kilmington, Sidmouth, Sidbury and Sidford, Beer and Seaton. They are all fantastic examples of commitment from not just veterans but people who have not served. The Axminster branch, for example, has won significant awards, including the Crediton cup and the national RBL award of the Lister trophy. On 11 November last year, it was striking to see how the branch encourages veterans’ stories to be passed on to children in the town and the community, which would not otherwise happen.
David Rickard of the Honiton branch was the winner of the prestigious RBL 75th anniversary cup in February, and all of Honiton was very proud. The Kilmington branch has 120 members, despite the village having only 1,000 residents. We have a thriving RBL community in Devon. I am massively grateful for all that its members do, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for giving me the opportunity to thank them.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to participate in the debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing it.
I rise to celebrate the impact of the Royal British Legion in my constituency, which is primarily through the National Memorial Arboretum. It is a genuinely wonderful place with 150 acres of woodland and over 420 memorials. As I walk around this place, I speak to so many people who say that they have been meaning to visit some day. I cannot stress how much I advise people to make “some day” today.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I was invited to the National Memorial Arboretum for Remembrance Day. I proudly watched my hon. Friend lay a wreath, just as I was proud to lay a wreath on behalf of fallen men and women in my neighbouring constituency. As I am serving on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am growing in awe for the men and women who serve in the forces, including those I get to meet through the Royal British Legion. Members of the Swadlincote district branch raised over £52,000 for the poppy appeal, and they helped to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-day. They play a huge role in the local community. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal British Legion plays a significant role in ensuring that we never forget the sacrifices made by those who have served?
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Royal British Legion does so much through its branches and clubs. I am privileged to have a number of branches and two clubs in my constituency, and I will support them for as long as I can.
I will return to the National Memorial Arboretum, which is the country’s centre of remembrance. It is a wonderful place, and I repeat that people should make “some day” today and get up there if possible. I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to show some of my fellow MPs around the site. Every time I go, it reminds me that remembrance is not just for November. It is so much more than wearing our poppies. It is about celebrating and reflecting on the service and sacrifice of so many who have helped to make our country what it is today.
Last week, I also hosted an event in Parliament with the UK Police Memorial Trust. The arboretum not only celebrates our armed services, but is a home to memorials to our emergency service workers, and indeed anybody who has given that service and sacrifice. The police memorial, which opened almost four years ago, pays tribute to officers who have laid down their lives keeping their communities safe. The trust has just launched a new education programme. I invite all Members to flag that to their schools, as I have, because remembrance is not just for that one month. It is for all year round, and it should be for anybody who has given that service and sacrifice.
Finally, we are about to come to the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory over Japan. I particularly thank the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for supporting the Royal British Legion in leading services at the arboretum to mark those dates. Britain’s victory in the second world war secured peace on our shores, but in an ever-more dangerous world, we should never take peace for granted. In ever-more dangerous times, we have much to learn from our second world war veterans. I would be delighted to join them to mark VJ Day at the National Memorial Arboretum. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to confirm which Minister will be joining us for the day.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate.
In my constituency of Spelthorne, we have 2,500 veterans, and I want to talk about one of them—Alderman Robin Sider, who was awarded the British Empire Medal. He joined the Army as a private soldier and left 40 years later as a major. Like so many military veterans, he still felt imbued with the desire to do public service and he became Spelthorne’s longest serving councillor and twice its mayor. Given the reorganisation of local government, that record will never be beaten. It was the honour of my life last Friday to be a pallbearer at his funeral, and I remembered a particular story about Robin. Last November, I joined him for his stint collecting for the Royal British Legion outside Sainsbury’s in Shepperton High Street. Last year, there had been an innovation, which was the presence of a QR code. Robin was old school if nothing else and he rather liked the bragging rights that came with having collected up to £400 in his bucket. He did not know, if people used the QR reader, how much money they gave and therefore he could not brag about it. I had to rush away and run an errand for about 20 minutes. I came back and saw that the QR code had mysteriously had a poppy wreath placed over it, and as a result his bucket overflowed.
I pay tribute to the work of the Royal British Legion and all its volunteers. I am absolutely inundated with choices as to where to enjoy Remembrance Sunday. Equally, I am impressed by all the schools in Spelthorne and the way in which they keep the flame alive with our children.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the VE Day celebrations on 8 May, because I know that the Royal British Legion is still out there trying to find every last veteran who was around on VE Day to join it for those celebrations, and I urge anyone watching this debate so to do.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I, too, begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. Representing a Scottish constituency, I will focus my remarks on the work of Poppyscotland, which is vital for 4,000 veterans living in Glenrothes and Mid Fife. The sizeable veterans community in Fife is testament to the strong and proud connections that the kingdom has to the famous Black Watch regiment. Fife is home to nearly 10% of Scotland’s 175,000-strong veterans population. We know how many veterans there are in Scotland and the distinct needs of that group in our society thanks to Poppyscotland and its successful Count Them In campaign ahead of the Scottish census in 2022. That is just one example of Poppyscotland’s effective advocacy and support for the veterans community.
I was privileged to work alongside colleagues in Poppyscotland when I worked for the charity Sight Scotland Veterans, which supports veterans who are blind and partially sighted. From that experience, I learned just how invaluable the work of Poppyscotland is for our veterans. It ranges from advice services, support for veterans facing financial difficulties and advice and aids for those with mobility problems, to housing and mental health support. Poppyscotland also led the Unforgotten Forces consortium in Scotland. That brought together veterans charities, which were successfully collaborating to tackle the loneliness and isolation too often experienced by our veterans.
Every day, the Royal British Legion, Poppyscotland and so many other veterans charities throughout the United Kingdom provide fantastic support to our veterans community, but they have rightly challenged us as a country to do better by our responsibility to our armed forces and veterans communities. Therefore I very much support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. It has been an important and successful role in Scotland, and I think there is much to learn from the work of the commissioner there, but we can go further.
I agree very much with what the Royal British Legion has said about ensuring that the armed forces covenant is a duty not just for local authorities, but for central Government and for the devolved Administrations. Also, we could do more to provide guidance for local authorities to ensure that they know what in practice it looks like to work alongside our veterans charities to ensure that our veterans are properly supported and fully included in our communities, and that we as a nation live up to our duties and our role to ensure that we meet our responsibilities as a nation to our armed forces personnel and to our veterans.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate.
I have no doubt that the Royal British Legion is one of the most nationally significant charities in Britain today. That is not solely because of the legion’s poppy appeal, which has raised millions upon millions of pounds to support the armed forces communities since 1921, nor because it leads our nation in remembrance each year, in a moment of national unity, with deeply shared gratitude, sorrow and loss that each generation continues; it is also because of its invaluable and irreplaceable support for British servicemen and women, veterans and their families.
Established in the aftermath of the first world war, the legion helped returning soldiers to find housing and work. In the century since, the legion’s services to veterans have been a lifeline, and it has grown to support the entire armed forces community. Though I only served briefly, I know from friends who continued in the armed forces and from veterans in my community that the legion has made an enormous difference in their lives. As we all know, however, the Royal British Legion is more than a national charity; it is also local, and long embedded in communities across the country, including in my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency.
The Hayes Royal British Legion branch was established over 90 years ago and is a cornerstone of the local community. While many membership organisations struggle, it boasts 900 members, who together raise thousands of pounds to support serving and ex-serving members of the British armed forces and their families. I commend the work of their president, Jo Charstone, and all the wonderful volunteers, such as Olly Pereira and Dennis Burroughs. Although the Hayes branch, like others, has grown to include those who have not served, it still provides a crucial social hub for Bromley’s veterans. More than 6,600 veterans live in the London borough of Bromley—more than in any other corner of London—and the Hayes Royal British Legion branch offers Bromley’s veterans a place of camaraderie every month.
I look forward to joining the branch next month for the beacon service, which they are organising to commemorate VE Day. It is a moment to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the second world war. In a powerful initiative, the Hayes branch will also ask residents living in a home that once belonged to a fallen hero to display a “Remembrance Tommy” sign in their garden bearing the name of the previous owner who never returned, so that we will always remember them.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. As someone who has spoken many times in the House about the importance of supporting those who have served in our armed forces, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.
The Royal British Legion does so much behind the scenes to support our veterans. I am proud to say that we have a long-standing Mansfield branch of the Royal British Legion, established on 9 October 1921. As Mansfield’s Member of Parliament, I do everything I can to support the work of the RBL locally. It is important that we all do everything we can to ensure that its activities continue in every one of our constituencies.
That is the reason I was very disappointed to hear recently that our Armed Forces Day commemorations, which that usually take place each year in Mansfield, have been cancelled. The commemoration is enjoyed by families from right across the constituency, including my own. Many have written to me to express their disappointment. I hope therefore that the local parties to this event, including Mansfield district council and the Mansfield business improvement district, will get together and resolve the matter without delay to the satisfaction of the RBL, which has written to me to express its disappointment—as, of course, have many of my constituents.
It is important that we all play our part to support our armed forces personnel, not just through the RBL, but through all the incredible charities and organisations that support our veteran communities.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Members have rightly raised the invaluable work of their Royal British Legion local branches. I too would like to extol the virtues of RBL Cippenham in Slough and in particular the Berkshire poppy appeal, which does exceptional work in Slough. Most recently, I welcomed the RBL director general to give evidence to the Defence Committee so that we could learn more about the RBL’s national work. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amazing work the RBL does makes it a lifeline for many of our serving members, veterans and their families, and it deserves our recognition and support?
Steve Yemm
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Certainly in my own constituency, I see many of those things the RBL does behind the scenes, such as helping those living at home, assisting with personal casework issues, providing grants, ensuring veterans are getting the appropriate war pensions they are entitled to, and so forth. I certainly agree it is a lifeline. Given that we all believe the RBL does great work in our communities, I certainly promise that, for as long as I am the Member of Parliament for Mansfield, I will do everything I can to ensure that in my constituency we support the RBL and we never forget.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this important debate, and for his work as president of the Hinckley branch of the Royal British Legion.
I too am a member of the Royal British Legion and have enjoyed many visits to local branches, including my local Brampton branch’s monthly Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes break, but my constituency also hosts the Huntingdon, Sawtry, and Kimbolton district branches. Huntingdon is home to a higher proportion of veterans than most areas in the country, and therefore the work of the RBL is extremely valued—not just commemorating the service of those who have sacrificed their lives for this country, but the support it provides to our veterans every single day.
Every year, I take part in the London poppy appeal, which sees over 1,000 uniformed personnel from the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force, along with an additional 1,000 veterans, volunteers and supporters, raise over £1 million for the vital work of the Legion. Last November, it was an honour to stand next to my old regimental colleagues from the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and the Royal Yorkshire Regiment, selling poppies and reminiscing about our time served together, as well as those who did not return. As a veteran myself, I know only too well the support that is needed and the crucial role that the RBL plays. I know I speak on behalf of my fellow veterans, and indeed of those still serving, when I say this focus on our armed forces community makes us feel appreciated and valued.
However, it is important to reiterate that the work of the RBL is not limited to just selling poppies. The RBL offers lifelong support to both serving and ex-serving personnel and their families, starting from day one of service and continuing after they leave. Its assistance includes expert advice, recovery, rehabilitation and help with transitioning to civilian life. Where it cannot provide direct support, its extensive network ensures that veterans are connected with someone who can, meaning that every veteran is cared for.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. Like his, my constituency has many members of the armed forces—one in 20 of my constituents have served. He talks about the services the RBL offers; does he agree that members of the armed forces develop very valuable skills, and join me in commending the Royal British Legion for the support it provides in helping members of the armed forces to move into employment in civilian life?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. It is so important that those vital skills developed by armed forces personnel during their time in service are transitioned into the civilian workforce. I know there are many civilian employers that would welcome veterans for the skills they bring, their self-discipline and their self-starting motivation. When I transitioned from the armed forces, I had help from various organisations, and that wraparound care is very much needed.
Latterly, the RBL has also campaigned on behalf of veterans, successfully campaigning for the waiver of indefinite leave to remain fees for Commonwealth veterans. I gently nudge the Minister on expanding the scope to include their dependants, which I know is on his to-do list.
In closing, I thank all those who work tirelessly to keep the Royal British Legion in the forefront of our minds, commemorating those who have made the ultimate sacrifice via the poppy appeal, advocating for our veterans and being the glue that binds together much of our veterans’ community. Without them, being a veteran would be far more challenging.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate.
The financial, social and emotional support the Royal British Legion has provided veterans for over a century has been quite remarkable. Even though I have never served in the military, the camaraderie of veterans and their shared bond of looking after each other is something that I can recognise, admire and respect. As an MP, I see the same traits in organisations and charities in my constituency. Times have been incredibly hard this last decade and a half, and rallying around each other has kept people and communities going. The Wee County Veterans of Clackmannanshire is a group that show the very best of both the veterans and the wider local community. It has been my honour to attend their meetings, to share a Christmas dinner in their company and to represent them here in Parliament.
I would like to speak on a recent decision made by the RBL to withdraw the Armed Services Advice Project. ASAP was established in 2010 and has given assistance to more than 21,500 Scottish veterans. In its 14 years, the scheme helped veterans access over £20 million-worth of benefits and compensation. For many, ASAP’s intervention alleviated poverty or stopped them descending into it.
As well as saving veterans from destitution, the services also saved lives. In collaboration with the Wee Country Veterans and RBLS Grangemouth, ASAP co-ordinators such as Ally Gemmell dealt with struggles that many veterans were wrestling with. Isolation, homelessness, adapting to civilian life, grinding penury and suicidal thoughts were commonplace in the daily conversations that Ally would have.
For RBL to axe the scheme was a mistake. ASAP, and the lifesaving individual relationships it created, have been replaced by a call centre service that will have to help veterans who are in extreme distress. RBL called it remodelling the service—but what that really meant was cuts. I would appreciate it if the Minister could engage with RBL regarding potential reinstatement of ASAP, because our veterans deserve much better than to be victims of decisions that leave them more vulnerable.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for bringing forward this debate. It is an honour to speak about the invaluable contributions of the Royal British Legion—an organisation that has tirelessly supported veterans, serving personnel and their families for more than a century.
I want to highlight three specific areas where the Legion's impact has been profound. First, in Northern Ireland, the Royal British Legion has played a critical role in supporting veterans and their families, particularly those affected by the troubles. Our region’s unique history means that many veterans have faced significant challenges, including post-service adjustment, mental health struggles and financial hardship. Today’s date is a poignant one: it is the anniversary of the formation of the Ulster Defence Regiment, on 1 April 1970, and of the Irish Guards, on 1 April 1900.
Secondly, the Royal British Legion Republic of Ireland, holds a special place in the history of the British Legion, despite historical complexities. Originally established in 1925 by Irish world war one veterans, it provides crucial assistance to Irish citizens who have served in our British armed forces. Its presence in the Republic ensures that veterans receive access to support and also to remembrance services. Indeed, the late Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway DFC, who passed away on St Patrick’s day and was the last of “the few”, was born in Dublin in 1919 and returned to live there in 1969. He was fondly remembered by his comrades in the Royal British Legion Republic of Ireland.
Finally, I pay tribute to, and highlight, the contribution of those branches in my constituency of South Antrim—the Antrim, Ballyclare, Carnmoney/Glengormley and Randalstown branches, and the Crumlin branch, which unfortunately closed recently. Those branches have not only provided welfare support to veterans and their families, but been instrumental in fostering that community spirit through remembrance events and fundraising activities. Their dedication to preserving the memory of those who have served, and ensuring that today’s veterans receive the support that they deserve, is truly commendable. Those local branches continue to be a pillar of strength and unity, and our local Randalstown branch is due to celebrate its 100th anniversary on Sunday 22 June with a drumhead service.
The Royal British Legion’s contribution extends far beyond financial aid. It offers dignity, recognition and unwavering support to those who have served, whether in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, or within their local branches across this country. Its work remains vital and I believe it is our duty to support and champion its efforts, ensuring that the sacrifices of our servicemen and women are never forgotten.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. We have three speakers left. I ask you to limit yourselves to three minutes each, and then, with the forbearance of the Front Bench speakers, we will get everybody in.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate. In Portsmouth, the home of the Royal Navy, we know all too well the sacrifices made by our service personnel past and present. Our city has been at the heart of British naval history for centuries, and with that comes a deep understanding of the cost of service and the importance of remembrance every day.
The Royal British Legion has been a steadfast supporter of the armed forces community, providing vital assistance to veterans, service personnel and their families. It has been a lifeline for thousands who have struggled with the physical, mental and financial burdens of service. Whether through cost of living grants, debt advice or war pension support, the legion has ensured that those who have served our country are not left behind.
I take this opportunity to give a special shout-out to Terry and Denise Bryant, and all the poppy sellers in Pompey. I am honoured to have sold poppies alongside them, and I am pleased to have hosted a thank-you breakfast for them and veterans in December—I was honoured that the Defence Minister in the other place joined us.
Portsmouth is not just a city of naval history, but a city of service, with thousands of veterans and active personnel calling it home, and the work of the RBL is vital across our community. However, the Minister will be aware that challenges remain. The Government must uphold the principles of the armed forces covenant and ensure that it works in modern times. It has sat on a shelf for far too long, meaning that our service personnel and veterans have been let down for many years.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that all councils must follow the lead of Hertfordshire county council, which was one of the first to launch an armed forces covenant?
Amanda Martin
I agree 100%.
It is important that public bodies routinely identify veterans to ensure that they receive the support they need. Veterans deserve proper housing, adequate welfare support, and fair and timely treatment when it comes to military compensation. It is vital that, as Members of Parliament, our doors are always open to our veterans and service personnel. Our service families, including those of non-UK personnel who serve alongside our forces, should not face unnecessary barriers when settling in the UK.
In Portsmouth, we are proud of our naval heritage, but pride alone does not provide for our veterans. That is why we must continue to support the Royal British Legion in its mission. I urge the Government to continue listening to the voices of the armed service community, and to ensure that we follow through on the commitments we have made.
Finally, I thank those in Portsmouth who remember the sacrifices of those who serve and served—not just on Remembrance Day but every day—and the role that our Royal British Legion plays alongside our community.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate.
For over a century, the RBL has been a pillar of support for our armed forces community, serving those who have served us and ensuring that no one is left behind. The work of the RBL is deeply personal to my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter. Our Uttoxeter branch was established back in 1927, and has long been a source of camaraderie, support and remembrance in our local community. In Burton, veterans such as Carlton Wilkin, formerly of the Mercian Regiment, dress immaculately for every civic occasion and organise our poppy appeal. I look forward to joining them again in poppy selling later this year.
The poppy appeal is not just about raising funds—my constituents are always very generous—but about honouring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. It is a testament to the unwavering commitment of RBL volunteers, who dedicate their time to making a real difference to other people’s lives. I grew up in a generation that remembers the news showing Union flag-draped coffins being unloaded and paraded through Wootton Bassett every day. That always left a strong impression on me, and the RBL was always at the heart of giving our heroes the send-off they deserve.
Beyond the poppy appeal, I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). I have the honour of having the National Memorial Arboretum just outside my constituency. Every time I visit, I discover something new, whether a new memorial or a chance to reflect. I encourage everybody to take up my hon. Friend’s offer.
I commend the Government for their recent commitment of £3.5 million to support military veterans who face homelessness. As many hon. Members have said, we must go further by ensuring that the armed forces covenant is enshrined in law. The Royal British Legion embodies the very best of our nation of service, sacrifice and solidarity. We owe it our gratitude, but most importantly we owe it our continued support and action. I will always wear my poppy with pride and honour the service of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Royal British Legion has stood as a pillar of support for our armed forces community for over a century. I am proud to have two RBL branches in my constituency, and their local impact is deeply felt.
The Crowthorne branch, which celebrates its 103rd anniversary this year, continues to thrive with a 600-strong membership today. The branch and its club are an important pillar of the Crowthorne community, hosting dances, quizzes and special commemorations, as well as having an active women’s section. It is also an incredible fundraiser for the poppy appeal. Last year alone, it raised almost £40,000. I was very pleased to visit the club on Remembrance Day last year.
Meanwhile, in Bracknell, we recently celebrated the return of our RBL branch to full status after years as a community-supported branch. I understand that is virtually unheard of and has not been achieved for many years. That rare success demonstrates the dedication of local members, who now have a permanent home at the Bracknell bowling and social club.
I recently joined the Bracknell branch for its regular breakfast club, and it was great to see members of all ages, including a former Gurkha and his young family. It also does critical work in supporting its members, particularly with mental health. One success story is that of Jack Baron, who agreed to my sharing his story today. Jack was an existing committee member who came to RBL Bracknell for assistance and was referred to Op Courage, a free NHS mental health service for the armed forces community, and I am delighted to say that it was able to support him.
The RBL is a national treasure, but it is our responsibility to ensure that it is supported in its mission to serve those who have served us. That is why I am so proud to stand here today and offer my support for my local RBL branches.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their self-discipline and co-operation, which allowed me to call everyone who wanted to contribute. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, and we begin with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Thank you for your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate. As defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, a veteran of the Royal Military Police and someone who has worked closely with the Royal British Legion in my community, I warmly welcome this discussion.
The Royal British Legion makes a significant contribution, both locally and nationally. Its crucial work supports veterans, advocates for their rights and promotes remembrance. I am proud that the RBL and the Liberal Democrats share many values, such as fair treatment for veterans, mental health support and ensuring that the armed forces covenant is properly upheld.
The work of the RBL is vital. Those who have served put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms and values we cherish, and their sacrifices do not end when they leave the forces. Many veterans and service families face ongoing challenges, from physical and mental health struggles to difficulties transitioning back into civilian life. As the UK’s largest armed forces charity, the RBL has 180,000 members, 110,000 volunteers and a broad network of partners and charities. It is essential that, as MPs, we continue to support its work.
The RBL has played a fundamental role in fostering the UK’s strong culture of remembrance. It launched the first poppy appeal in 1921, selling 9 million poppies and raising £106,000 to support veterans of the great war with health and housing. Over a century later, the poppy appeal remains a cornerstone of remembrance, raising funds for financial aid, healthcare support and transition services for veterans. The local footprint of the Royal British Legion across the country and overseas provides a tried and tested structure to help us all play our part in supporting the armed forces community every day. That is even more important now, as our serving personnel deploy on operations and prepare for an uncertain future. The RBL is both a pillar of support for the armed forces community and a guardian of our national memory.
On a personal note, I was proud to take part in the RBL’s cycle challenge in November, in which I was the fastest female MP. I was happy to see the number of MPs who eagerly took part in that challenge to support the RBL, and many of them are here today. Perhaps less well known, but no less important, is the role that the RBL plays in our local communities. In my county of Surrey, I have seen just how well the RBL helps to mobilise support across the community.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, the RBL’s integration within the local authority is massively important because it is the voice of the people it represents, and their warmth, passion, consideration and expertise. Does the hon. Lady agree that co-operation with local authorities in providing services around housing and financial management, as well as emotional management, is massively important?
Helen Maguire
Yes. It is absolutely vital, and I will come on to that point in a moment.
As I was saying, the RBL does a lot, from sharing a moment of reflection while commemorating the 80th anniversary of VE Day on 8 May this year by lighting the beacon on Epsom Downs to organising the Remembrance Sunday parade each year.
My local Epsom and Ewell branch raised over £79,000 during the 2024 poppy appeal, the highest amount raised by any Surrey branch and the most the Epsom and Ewell branch has ever raised. I extend my thanks and gratitude to the organiser, Amy Johnson, and to all the amazing volunteers who stood for hours collecting donations—I was proud to be a volunteer myself. However, there is a national shortage of volunteers like Amy, so I encourage everyone to donate their time.
My local branch runs a monthly veterans community hub, offering ex-servicemen and women a place for community and companionship. This initiative has been a lifeline for over 30 veterans, many of whom had felt isolated before attending. I have been delighted to meet so many wonderful individuals and to hear stories about their time in the armed forces. One woman who stands out is Mildred, who is 101 and was in the Special Operations Executive in Italy, running messages to and from the resistance on her bike—she spent her 21st birthday in a cave with other resistance fighters. I was honoured to celebrate her 100th birthday with her at the veterans hub.
The group, which is led by the incredible Barb Warwick and so many volunteers, has also taken veterans on trips, including a visit to the D-Day Story Museum in Portsmouth, and it gets them to participate in activities such as archery and model-making. The group is extremely grateful to 135 Geographic Squadron Royal Engineers and Major Quintin Locke for allowing it to use the Army Reserve centre free of charge.
It is inspiring to see communities come together to support the RBL’s work, but we must do more to ensure that veterans receive a fair deal. Branches such as Epsom and Ewell, which have worked closely with borough councils, are anxious about the transition to unitary local government. We must ensure that RBL branches continue to have opportunities to work with devolved Governments under the new system.
Branches also struggle with membership, despite the presence of many veterans, as many veterans are unaware of the support available to them. GPs are now pledged to support veterans in any way they can as part of the military covenant, and it is vital that they are equipped with the resources to connect veterans to the RBL and other resources.
Additionally, the RBL is keen to break the misconception that it primarily serves veterans from world war one and world war two. It actively supports veterans from conflicts such as those in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I noted when I spent time with the RBL in Tunbridge Wells that there has been an age shift, and that it is the old and the bold who are manning the barricades, as I am sure that many of us have seen that in our local branches. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister and the Government to connect service leavers—people of our generation, as my hon. Friend and I served at the same time—and the RBL in the areas where they are going to live?
Helen Maguire
Absolutely. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and his point could be considered in the resettlement schemes for people leaving the armed forces.
The RBL is involved in a number of campaigns to improve the lives of all members and veterans of the armed forces, but it needs our help here in Westminster. We can start by backing the RBL’s “Credit Their Service” campaign to stop military compensation being treated as income in the means-testing of welfare benefits, which causes veterans and their families to lose out on thousands of pounds a year. Compensation awarded by the Government for service-related injuries should not be treated differently from civil compensation awarded by the courts. The current practice violates the armed forces covenant, and it is time for change.
Another pressing issue is the impact of welfare reforms on disabled veterans. With one in five working-age veterans living with a disability, the proposed welfare changes risk making it harder for them to claim essential support. And narrower eligibility criteria for personal independence payment and changes to universal credit could negatively affect veterans with service-related conditions.
Additionally, delaying access to incapacity benefit until the age of 22 could disproportionately harm young veterans, particularly early service leavers and those who are medically discharged. Upon leaving the armed forces, many veterans struggle with complex mental health issues. It is unacceptable that those who served our country and are left suffering with depression, anxiety or PTSD receive inadequate support. The new Government must do more to assist these brave men and women by providing regular mental health check-ups and ensuring timely access to professional help.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving the recording of veterans’ physical and mental health outcomes, including waiting times for treatment. We must also continue to combat the stigma surrounding mental health, so that veterans feel able to seek the support they need.
For over a century, the RBL has supported serving and former service personnel and their families. However, despite these efforts, more than half of veterans have faced mental health challenges and 60% hesitate to seek support due to stigma. Organisations such as the RBL play a vital role in reducing such stigma by fostering connections between veterans of different generations who have shared experiences.
The failure to provide a fair deal for the armed forces is not just morally wrong; it also affects recruitment and retention, leaving our country less secure. At a time when our national security is increasingly under threat, we must remember the sacrifices made in military service. I am proud of the Royal British Legion’s contributions, both in Epsom and Ewell and across the country. We must stand with the RBL as it continues to support those who have sacrificed so much for us, and I hope that all Members here today will join me in signing up to become a member of the Royal British Legion.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. In a debate that is really in itself a tribute to the RBL, I begin with a number of tributes, in particular to all colleagues who have spoken today. We have seen the House at its best with a strong cross-party consensus, commemorating our veterans as well as paying tribute to all those who work for the RBL for the brilliant work they do for our veterans.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). He is a GP, an MP and, we have learnt today, the honorary president of the Royal British Legion Hinckley branch. He has done them proud. I think he has named all the key people and the key players; I am sure they will all be getting a hard copy of Hansard in the post to commemorate the debate. As he said, the RBL’s local work is the manifestation of a brilliant effort, which our constituents feel at the coalface.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for mentioning the National Memorial Arboretum. It is an incredible place. He asked which Minister will be there this year. I cannot help him there, but I can tell him who it was last year: I had that great privilege. He may know that in the central area of commemoration there is an arrow slit that, should it be sunny in Staffordshire, the sun shines through at 11 am.
James Cartlidge
I am pleased to say it was when I was there. It shone through at 11 am, and it was quite wonderful to behold—a very spiritual moment indeed, just as we said those magic words, so I am grateful to the hon. Member.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for mentioning Poppy Day. I very much enjoyed that day alongside the legion and our team, both as a Minister and a shadow Minister. I did not have the privilege of serving in the military, but I did run my own business, and I would like to think that the sales approach when I was there was quite robust and direct in approaching members of the public and that we achieved some pretty healthy sales outcomes.
On the matter of the competitive spirit, I, like the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), took part in the RBL static cycling challenge. It was the day I was renewed as shadow Defence Secretary, from interim to what one might call enduring—who knows? I did the challenge alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I am pleased to say I just pipped him to the post. It highlights what a key part of our lives in Parliament the RBL is.
As has been said, the RBL offers a wide range of services, both locally and nationally, from care homes to debt advice. In government, we did much to support veterans, and we are very proud of that. As has been said, we gave veterans a voice at the Cabinet table, which was particularly passionately embodied by Johnny Mercer. We also had Op Courage to support highly targeted mental health services for veterans. I remind colleagues that we also implemented an employer’s national insurance cut for veterans, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that will remain in place. As I understand it, it has only been confirmed until 2026, so that would be good to know.
The most important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made—I hope he gets a couple of minutes at the end to respond—was about how we continue this great festival of remembrance as the generation that served in the second world war passes from us. We have just mourned the passing of the last person who served in the battle of Britain—the last of “the Few”, as we say. We must keep that flame alive. I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who said it was all about education. I hope the Minister will confirm that the attempt to keep the flame of remembrance alive will be at the heart of his work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they bring forward the details of how we will mark VE Day and VJ Day.
As has been said, this is about recruitment and how the public are inculcated with a sense belief in the armed forces, so that they support the taxpayers’ money that has to go to them. A lot more will have to because of the situation the world is in; there is huge consensus on that point. Finally, as I have not had a chance to do so to date, I thank the Minister for his letter on the Clonoe case. I hope we will continue to work together to stand up for our veterans.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member will not mind me namechecking Portadown, Banbridge, Donaghcloney and Lurgan and Brownlow in my constituency, which are exemplary in how they support veterans and their families, particularly those from Northern Ireland who served during the IRA terror campaign and were a human shield between good and evil. Many of them lost their lives and were seriously injured. Does he agree that the RBL hierarchy in Great Britain needs to recognise the sacrifice and service of those in Northern Ireland, and to continue to build relationships, rather than pulling things away from Northern Ireland? It is so important that those veterans are supported for the service that they gave.
James Cartlidge
The key point we have heard today is how the work of the RBL goes across every region of England and every part of the Union, and of course that includes Northern Ireland. It is not just about the first and second world wars; it is about all those other campaigns, Operation Banner included. The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate, and for giving hon. Members the opportunity to highlight the fantastic work of the Royal British Legion and its thousands of volunteers. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, the number of hon. Members present today is a great reflection of British politics, as is the mix of political parties and the unity we have behind those who have served, their families and those who are still serving. It is important to champion them. They are what stands between us and tyranny, as they demonstrated many years ago, in 1939.
I think it is worth while to recognise that the RBL does a fantastic job at three levels. First, it does an amazing job at the national level. It ties society and defence back together. We have, perhaps, more of a societal and defence drift than ever before. For many of us, our grandfathers or grandmothers served, and we had an immediate connection to defence. That is not necessarily the case today. The RBL acts as a glue and a binding mechanism to pull us back together, and to help us remember why those who serve are so important to the nation.
Secondly, behind all the big events—whether that is Invictus, the D-day commemorations or VE Day, which is approaching—one organisation is always absolutely central, which is, of course, the RBL. It does so much of the heavy lifting. It is really impressive.
Thirdly, there is the local level. We have heard so many amazing stories today of individual RBL branches doing an amazing job not just to cohere councils and deliver support, but, importantly, at the personal level to change thousands of people’s lives. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those in the RBL.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know he is aware that this summer, we will mark the centenary of the war memorial in Kirkcaldy, and that the Kirkcaldy branch of the Royal British Legion Scotland is doing a fine job of organising a ceremony and a significant tribute that is worthy of the cause. I know the Minister is aware that he has received an invitation from me to attend that event, and I wonder if he might consider it favourably.
Al Carns
If I can be there, I definitely will. It will be fantastic and I would not want to miss it.
It has been mentioned that the Royal British Legion was founded in 1921 from the merger, interestingly, of four ex-servicemen’s organisations. I think that that has not been mentioned in a debate since 2013, so I would like to reflect on that. The RBL established the two-minute silence and the poppy appeal—remembrance traditions that endure today and, importantly, unite the nation. It has expanded its support to all those who have served for at least seven days, adapting to each generation’s changing needs. I will, perhaps, talk about that shortly. It is now the UK’s largest military charity, with 180,000 members, 110,000 volunteers—an army in itself—and a network of partners and charities.
There is an important point, which was mentioned more than four times by various speakers in the debate, about schools and educating people about why remembrance is so important. As we approach VE Day, yes, it is important to remember the sacrifice of individuals, but it is also important to remember the cause of the collective. Why were those people called to the front in the first place? To protect the freedoms that we all enjoy. Again, the underlying message is that freedom is not necessarily free. We can reflect that idea into the geopolitical situation of today—with North Korean troops fighting on the very edge of Europe—which has probably never been so fractious. There is an important role for the RBL and other charities in enhancing the lessons of the past and ensuring that the youth of the nation remember that.
The RBL is an organisation that makes an immeasurable contribution, from remembrance and representation to service and support. Its iconic annual poppy appeal, which I collected for in London last year, has become woven into the very fabric of our national identity. It is an organisation that also gives practical, life-changing support, day in and day out, seven days a week and 24 hours a day.
Luke Myer
I just want to inform my hon. Friend of a meeting that I had with my local RBL in Boosbeck last week. As a result of him coming to our constituency for a discussion on veteran mental health, a local developer, who saw the coverage of that visit, is now converting a former disused nursing home into a specialist veterans’ supported-living community in our constituency. Will he take this moment to commend the Castle Court veterans village project? I wonder whether he would like to visit.
Al Carns
I absolutely support the Castle Court veterans village. I think it is a fantastic initiative, and I really enjoyed the visit—and all of the visits that I have been on. I just get that grassroots feel. When we combine that with some of the broader national priorities that we are pushing, we end up with the perfect mix of deliverables.
Perhaps that is a useful opportunity to come on to the Government partner: that is, the Royal British Legion. It is a key partner to the Government as we work to rewrite the contract between the state and those who serve, those who have served, and, of course, very importantly—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer)—the families who also serve alongside them.
The Royal British Legion has been a steadfast partner to the armed forces covenant, throughout its creation and review and as the Government have worked to extend its scope and implementation. The Royal British Legion ensures that the voice of our armed forces community is heard at the highest level, helping to shape the policies that affect our service personnel. The Royal British Legion runs the vitally important Battle Back military rehabilitation centre at Lilleshall, which supports the physical and psychological recovery of service personnel and veterans. Finally, the Royal British Legion is, of course, our Invictus games delivery partner, and I look forward to inviting it to Birmingham in 2027.
The Royal British Legion not only partners with us, the Government, but pushes Government and local authorities to do better, and the manifesto that it published last year contained a wide range of useful recommendations to end the disadvantage faced by our armed forces community. Perhaps this is an opportunity to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth raised earlier about building on what the previous Government have done. First, I would like to thank him for his push for my promotion into Cabinet, but I would argue that the Defence Secretary represents us in Cabinet.
Interestingly, by pooling the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Veterans Minister in Defence, we have really tied the veterans space back into all the constituent parts in Defence that already deal with veterans activity. Individually, they were significant, but, collectively, it is really powerful. We have managed to really synthesise the support to veterans over time, and that is building and will come out in due course.
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs, which was created by the previous Government, is a fantastic organisation and expanding, but, if we look below the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, what sits between it and the charitable sector? As mentioned earlier, where can we help to cohere and co-ordinate the charitable sector, build data, push down strategy and enhance the services at not just the national level but the local level? I think that is where the sweet spot is. As we pull the covenant into law in 2026, and expand that duty, that will be really important, because there is a requirement for education and communication on what the covenant is, and, of course, what it is not.
As mentioned by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, Ops Courage, Fortitude, Restore and Ascend probably deal with in excess of 40,000 people across mental health, housing and musculoskeletal issues, all the way through to career-transition partnership. Interestingly, the statistics on career transition are that circa 86% of all veterans went straight into employment after the first year. I can happily say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk that the national insurance measure is still in place for the next 12 months, and I hope to extend that long into the future.
On indefinite leave to remain availability after five years of service, we have made the manifesto commitment to reduce that to four years, and, of course, to waive visa fees. I am happy to take that discussion offline if anyone would like to discuss that in more detail in due course.
I would like to give the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth a minute at the end, so I will wrap up very quickly. As a veteran, and as the Minister for veterans and people, I will do all I can to support the RBL’s work, and to partner with them and work collaboratively. I trust that all hon. Members would like to join me in putting on the record our appreciation for all of its service, which is absolutely invaluable to not only the Government but the thousands of people who serve, their families, and the veterans themselves.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Luke Evans to wind up in less than 30 seconds.
Dr Luke Evans
Let us reflect on the quiet, steadfast work of the Royal British Legion. It is a pillar of remembrance, a shield for those who served, and a voice for those who can no longer speak. In paying tribute to that, we affirm our collective duty to support it, just as it has supported so many. We will remember them.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member, and to all who have contributed to this understandably popular debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.
Rail Services: East Durham Coastline
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Grahame Morris to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services on the east Durham coastline.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Some hon. Members might be expecting me to start with an April fool’s joke, but after hearing about the state of rail services in my constituency, they will agree that no joke or exaggeration could be more ridiculous than the reality that my constituents face every day.
The service is characterised by delays, no-notice cancellations and dangerously overcrowded trains, particularly during peak periods, which all too often leave passengers stranded on the platform. In London, where the next service may arrive in a matter of minutes, that might not be an issue, but at Seaham and Horden, one cancelled service means at least an hour’s wait. Rail links should promote connectivity, providing opportunities to access education and employment. However, Northern’s failing services mean that my constituents cannot depend on transport links to maintain their employment.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has described not only affects his constituents in Easington, but extends down to my constituents in Billingham in Teesside and prevents our constituents from seeking employment and educational opportunities in the major conurbations of the north-east?
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend’s point is well made. I completely agree: the problem affects not just my Easington constituency, but Hartlepool, Billingham and the Tees valley. Not only does it undermine local opportunities, but it damages our local economy and takes wages out of our community as people are forced to move closer to work or to areas with more dependable transport links.
The community welcomed the reopening of Horden station in June 2020, after a prolonged battle to secure much-needed transport investment, but it was meant to unlock economic opportunities in Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Newcastle. Instead, its unreliability and the lack of additional services have only worsened the pre-existing problems further down the line at Seaham. As a frequent passenger myself, I experience the chaos caused by cancellations and insufficient capacity. My constituents and I simply cannot depend on Northern with its cancellations, delays and dangerous overcrowding, particularly when there are only two carriages at peak times.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As well as affecting people’s jobs and their ability to get to work, it has an impact on those in the countryside who need transport to get wherever they are going, whether that is for a doctor’s appointment, for work or for a visit to relatives. The impact is compounded for those who live in rural isolation. Given what the hon. Gentleman is outlining, does he feel that a commitment from the Government is needed to sort out the shortcomings of the rail line?
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
I welcome the Government’s recent decision to publish train cancellation and delay data, including monthly figures on the worst-performing stations, via the Office of Rail and Road. Holding operators to account is essential if we want things to improve, but the data does not capture the passengers who are left on the platform. Whether it occurs through cancellation or through dangerous overcrowding, the outcome is the same: passengers scramble to find last-minute alternative means of travel. In the past 12 months, 6% of trains were cancelled at Seaham and Horden, including at least one train every day on average, and only two thirds have run to time. With one train per hour, the cancellations and delays have huge impacts.
Northern’s performance is erratic. In September last year, there were 38 cancellations on the route. By October, the number had skyrocketed to 186, which is almost five times as many. By the end of 2024, the situation had further deteriorated, leaving residents with no reliable means of reaching work, school, health appointments or other vital appointments by train. Northern attributed that partially to staff sickness, with driver absences at 17.6% and conductor absences at 16.9%, but questions need to be asked about what is driving such high levels of sickness.
I have met the chief exec and senior officers on several occasions. Their proposed solution of relying on rest-day working is simply not sustainable, and I fear that it will increase staff sickness over the long term. This is a safety-critical industry. We need to ensure that staff are safely rested, not under pressure to work at unsustainable levels. The industry should not be running on voluntary overtime; it must employ enough staff to ensure resilience in the system.
A long-standing issue on the route is the lack of rolling stock. Until 2019, believe it or not, we were still served by the old Pacer trains from the 1970s. We now have second-hand ScotRail class 158s and 156s, which have been refurbished. In the north-east, we are more than willing to accept repurposed rolling stock, but only if the service is regular and reliable and if it meets our transport needs.
Another long-standing point of contention is the fact that Northern runs only two carriages, instead of four, during peak periods. The lack of carriages is not just inconvenient; it is a health and safety concern. In previous debates, I have raised the case of a young boy who fell unconscious on an overcrowded train. I cannot imagine the terror of someone watching their child going limp, with their eyes rolling back, and then collapsing, with no escape from an overcrowded carriage.
Overcrowding is still a concern. I happen to be a Sunderland supporter, but when Newcastle are playing, scores of people are left on the platform at Horden and Seaham because the once-an-hour two-carriage train is already crammed with people who got on at Stockton, Billingham and Hartlepool. My constituents are left feeling angry and frustrated.
The issue has been raised repeatedly since I became an MP in 2010, but very little has changed. I therefore welcome the new Government’s commitment to the creation of Great British Railways, because we cannot promote economic growth with failing public transport. We can get our broken railway system finally back on track by ending decades of waste and starting to restore public trust, but there is a lot more to be done.
Northern Rail returned to public ownership in 2020, after the previous franchise had taken millions of pounds in dividends in return for substandard services. There may no longer be dividends rewarding failure, but the service remains substandard. I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me and other colleagues recently to discuss the Government’s plan, which is fantastic, to procure 450 new trains for Northern. That is a very welcome step, but will the Minister confirm how many of those trains will be allocated to the east Durham coastline? Given the isolation that my constituents feel because of unreliable transport, will he prioritise east Durham for the delivery of newly procured trains?
The long-term investment in new rolling stock is essential and fantastic, but its impact will not be felt until at least 2030. Like many people, I believe that we need some interim solutions. In the time remaining, I will outline them, because I have been told time and again—not just by this Government, but by the previous one—to bring solutions as well as problems.
First, Grand Central, the open access operator, has submitted two applications to the Office of Rail and Road. One application seeks to extend its track access agreement beyond 2027, but the other proposes more services, including a new stop at Seaham station, which the current Grand Central service runs through without stopping. That would not only provide additional capacity to Sunderland and Hartlepool, where services are severely overcrowded, but create the first direct link from my constituency to York and London. As the Grand Central service already passes through Seaham, adding a stop would extend the journey by only a few minutes.
The benefits of that additional Seaham stop cannot be overstated. Grand Central is still awaiting a decision, so I ask the Minister kindly to provide an update from the ORR. I understand that the Government might be reluctant to expand contracts for open access operators, given the move towards public ownership and concerns about loss of revenue. To my constituents, however, Northern and Grand Central are not running in competition; they are simply providers of rail services that are desperately needed in my constituency.
My second suggestion is that we increase Northern services from east Durham to Middlesbrough and Newcastle. I was pleased to receive a positive response to my written question on the matter. The ministerial response confirmed that the Rail North Partnership, on behalf of the Department for Transport and Transport for the North, is examining a business case for increasing services at Horden and Seaham by December 2025. It also said:
“The analysis must balance the economic and social benefits of this enhancement with the performance of existing services and the financial impact on taxpayer subsidy.”
I gently remind the Minister that the economic and social benefits of this enhancement to my constituents must not be underestimated. We have very low car ownership in east Durham. For those without access to cars, it is incredibly difficult to get to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough without spending hours on buses. People turn down jobs and college places because they simply have no reliable way of getting to them. That is a major barrier to economic growth.
A small but significant improvement would be to amend the timetable of the semi-fast Northern service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle. Since 2023, that two-hourly service, which is often a four-carriage train, has skipped Seaham and Horden despite high demand. The time saved by bypassing those two stations is between four to six minutes, but adding those stops would provide immediate relief to my constituents, with an additional train every two hours. All three of those solutions—Grand Central’s additional stop, increasing Northern services, and minor timetable adjustments—are needed while we await the arrival of new rolling stock beyond 2030.
If we are serious about local growth in east Durham, people must be able to travel out of their towns and villages to work, study and access local amenities—pubs, restaurants, cafés, medical facilities and shops. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January and February outlining these issues, and I would welcome the opportunity to meet Ministers to discuss them further.
The people of east Durham have waited far too long for a reliable rail service. They have endured overcrowding, cancellations and an outdated network that fails to meet their needs, and while I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to procuring new trains and increasing services, some short-term action is also required. Reliable transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity for jobs, education and economic growth. I urge the Minister to prioritise east Durham and to work with me and other colleagues to ensure that Seaham and Horden finally get the rail service they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on raising the important subject of rail services along the east Durham coastline. I also thank other Members for their contributions today.
The Government’s mission for growth is our No. 1 priority. We are kick-starting economic growth across the country. This means more and better jobs and more money in people’s pockets, but as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good and stable growth without a rail network that performs for his constituents in Easington and everyone across the north-east and the country.
Let me be clear: I am as frustrated as my hon. Friend by the poor service his constituents have experienced using Northern. He mentions overcrowded services, and I fully understand that passengers get frustrated when they regularly have to stand on trains, but I assure him that the Department requires its operators to plan services and rail timetables to meet passenger demand. We issue operators with guidelines on loading, including on standing time, and for most of the north that is currently 20 minutes.
However, services need to be operationally resilient and to provide value for money for the taxpayer as well as a reliable service for passengers. That means that it is not possible to guarantee every passenger a seat on every service, as that would require operators to maintain significantly larger fleets to meet demand at peak times, with trains then standing idle for much of the time. That being said, Northern, like all operators, takes its safety obligations seriously, and if my hon. Friend sends me more details on the specific safety cases he mentioned, I will be happy to take them up with Northern and write back to him.
None the less, it has been made clear to Northern’s management team that its current performance is not acceptable. That is why the Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued the operator with a notice of breach of contract. We have required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services for passengers, including the constituents of Easington.
That plan will require Northern to follow the necessary steps to match the Government’s ambition for transport across the north. Northern must resolve long-standing disputes with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers conductors to deliver a passenger-focused railway that runs seven days a week, whether on a Monday morning or a Sunday afternoon. It must develop its fleet and train crews and strengthen resources across engineering, control and operations. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of resilience when staff go off sick, which is in Northern’s improvement plan.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for seriously addressing the issues that I raised, and I hope that he will address my other two principal suggestions. It is all very well talking about resilience, but people’s travel plans are formed by their experience. We are trying to grow the railway and the local economy, but when individuals go to the railway stations at Seaham or Horden with their families to go shopping in Newcastle or Middlesbrough and they cannot get on the train, that experience colours their judgment. The next time, instead of standing there in the rain for an hour, they will choose an alternative method; they will take the X10 or find some other means of getting there. We really need to up our game and provide frequent and regular services from these stations.
Simon Lightwood
I agree, which is why the Government are placing passengers at the heart of our plan for Great British Railways. I hear what my hon. Friend is saying very clearly.
The improvement plan aims to tackle the resilience issue by ensuring that the operator develops a structure, from governance to process, that enables the business to better manage staff sickness. I agree with my hon. Friend that the railway industry’s reliance on rest-day working to operate services is not sustainable. That is why the Rail Minister in the other place has instructed Northern to ensure that it recruits and trains to its full complement so that overtime can be used for additional tasks, such as training, rather than running services.
I am ambitious for Northern to get back on the path to delivery by meeting the steps in its improvement plan, which will result in a more reliable service for passengers and my hon. Friend’s constituents. Northern’s overall cancellations are at more than 8%. That is not acceptable, and I share Members’ frustrations. That is why the improvement plan also sets a clear target for Northern: 90% of all its trains should arrive within three minutes of the time listed on the timetable, and cancellations should be below 3%.
I turn to services, because I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the semi-fast Northern service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle. I assure him that the stops chosen reflect the aspirations for a semi-fast service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle, and were chosen in collaboration with Transport for the North and its members. I gently remind my hon. Friend that Transport for the North and its members have never requested additional stopping services on the Durham coastline. The current infrastructure could not support a two trains per hour stopping service as well as one train per hour on a semi-fast service. Given the line’s capacity constraints, including freight traffic and shared use with the Tyne and Wear Metro, adding stops at Horden and Seaham would require remodelling to assess its operational viability.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to make progress. My hon. Friend will forgive me.
I also note my hon. Friend’s support for new proposed services from Grand Central, and I recognise the important role that Grand Central has played in improving connectivity and choice for passengers in the north-east. That is why the Department has provided support in principle to Network Rail’s consultation on the application from Grand Central to extend its existing access rights for an additional 11 years. However, capacity constraints on the east coast main line mean that we cannot support Grand Central’s separate application to operate additional services. That was set out in our letter to the regulator on 4 February. I note that some of those services would call at Seaham, which is in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I direct my hon. Friend to the improvements that the Government have already made to Northern connectivity and capacity. Although Northern’s procurement of new trains is at an early stage, and at this point I cannot say in detail where any of them will be running, I assure my hon. Friend that the new trains will have greater capacity and, over time, they will replace almost the entire Northern fleet, including those on the Durham coastline.
In Sunderland—home to the best football team in the world, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—we are carrying out the biggest overhaul of the railways in a generation to put passengers first and to deliver punctual, high-quality services. Grand Central trains already run to London five times a day on weekdays and four on weekends. That will only improve from December this year, when Grand Central will run an extra service to replace the withdrawn service from London North Eastern Railway.
Meanwhile, a regular metro service also provides connectivity to Newcastle, where two LNER trains per hour go to London. That will increase to three per hour from December this year. LNER continues to operate one return service from Middlesbrough to London, and although additional services to Middlesbrough are heavily dependent on changes to local station infrastructure, I remain ambitious for improvement.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Department remains supportive of a role for open access services where they provide improved connectivity and choice for passengers. However, we must ensure that they are a good use of taxpayer money and do not negatively impact the operation of the network. It must be noted that although the Department reviews open access applications as part of a standard process, access to the rail network is a matter for the regulator, and no decision on the applications from Grand Central has yet been made.
As I mentioned the east coast main line, I will reassure my hon. Friend about the Government’s commitment to invest in rail. The east coast main line will take advantage of a £4 billion investment when the timetable changes in December. That will mean 16,000 more seats daily between London and Newcastle, an hourly LNER service between both cities, more local trains north of Newcastle, new trains between Sheffield and Leeds, more services between Reading and York, and provision for additional services connecting Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Newcastle, and Nottingham and Lincoln. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for securing this important debate, and I thank hon. Members for their brief but important contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Relationship Education in Schools
(1 day, 3 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
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered relationship education in schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today, Sir Jeremy. Sadly, the relationship education that our young people currently receive does not address the realities of what it means to be a young person today. If we fail to urgently adapt and strengthen our approach to relationship education, we will fail to counter the inappropriate and often misogynistic ideas that our young people are exposed to, and we will therefore fail to protect women and girls from the violence that these ideas spur.
Prevention starts with education and the creation of a space for our young people to have conversations about relationships. As a mother of three teenagers—two boys and a girl—I have spent many years having open and honest conversations with them about relationships. I have done my best to ensure that they understand what a healthy relationship looks like and how to treat others with respect. However, as every parent knows, children do not always see their parents as the ultimate source of wisdom; they look to their peers, the internet and the world around them. That is why relationship education in schools is so vital. If we get it right, relationship education creates a safe space where young people can discuss these ideas openly with their peers, guided by teachers who are knowledgeable about the challenges that young people face.
The statistics paint a worrying picture: 41% of teachers have seen aggressive misogyny in classrooms, 51% have witnessed pupils advocating sexual violence, and only 43% of students feel personally represented and included by relationships and sex education. Young people are turning elsewhere to learn: 22% say online sources are their main source of information, while 15% say their primary source is pornography. The charity Let Me Know found that 60% of the young people polled did not know the signs of a healthy or unhealthy relationship. Those are shocking figures, which underline the urgency of getting this right.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing such an important debate to the House, and I congratulate her for having three teenagers and still holding down this job—that is a remarkable achievement. Relationship education is very important for how young people relate to their peers, but one of the common complaints I hear from parents in my constituency is that a lot of people will learn about relationships from social media. The hon. Member has already touched on this, but will she say a bit more about the importance of looking at young people’s access to social media and supporting teachers and headteachers who are looking at banning smartphones and social media in schools?
Helen Maguire
It is vital that we start to address what is going on with social media, as we have been calling for. The social media tech giants have to take on that responsibility.
One in four women and one in six men will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, and domestic abuse starts young: those aged 16 to 19 are the most likely to experience it. We need to focus on prevention to stop this at the root. Sadly, my Epsom and Ewell constituency has felt the devastating reality of violence against women and girls far too acutely in recent years, and the impact on families, friends, students and entire school communities has been profound.
Let us be clear, however, that violence against women and girls extends beyond my community; it is a national epidemic. In January, the National Audit Office reported that one in 12 women are victims of gender-based violence each year. Despite the increasing political attention, sexual assault rates among women aged 16 to 59 rose from 3.4% in 2009-10 to 4.3% in 2023-24. A key issue is that prevention has been an afterthought rather than a priority. That must change.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, which looked at the NAO report on violence against women and girls. In West Yorkshire, the police have developed a brilliant prevention programme —the hon. Lady touched on the need for prevention—called Pol-Ed, which goes into schools and teaches young people, both boys and girls, about some of the danger signs around spiking and inappropriate imagery, as well as about consent. Does she agree that it is important to educate children, both on prevention—what the danger signs are and what an unhealthy relationship is—and on what a healthy relationship looks like?
Helen Maguire
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; it is absolutely key to understand both, and to understand what the signs of an unhealthy relationship could be. We need to stop treating violence against women and girls as something that can be addressed only after the fact—after a woman has been assaulted, coerced, or has lost her life. We need to act before it happens, and that starts with education and empowering our young people with the knowledge of what a healthy relationship is.
The recent Netflix series, “Adolescence”, has brought national attention to the dangers facing young people today. It follows a 13-year-old boy accused of murdering a female classmate, sparking difficult but necessary conversations about online misogyny and extremist online communities. Teachers and parents are struggling to keep up with the ever-evolving nature of those threats. Teachers need greater support to tackle these issues in schools. Too often, they are simply ill-equipped and unprepared to teach relationships, sex and health education. Fifty per cent of pupils reported that power imbalances and pornography were not covered in their lessons, and 56% said that what a healthy relationship looks like was not covered either. Surely that should be absolutely key.
Incels, the red pill and the manosphere are relatively new terms, but the attitudes that they promote are not new. It is sexism and male chauvinism repackaged for the digital age, amplified and spread faster than ever before. That is why we must ensure that our education system evolves to counteract this harmful narrative before it takes root in young minds.
The Centre for Social Justice’s latest report, “Lost Boys”, highlights that boys in the UK are struggling in education, more likely to take their own lives, less likely to find stable employment and more susceptible to being drawn into crime. It also notes the increasing appeal of right-wing and regressive ideologies among young men. We must address the core challenges that our young men face and understand how misogyny is evolving, educating parents, teachers and, most importantly, young people themselves—we need to support them.
A whole-school approach is essential in addressing these issues effectively. This approach encourages schools to review their existing procedures and culture, to ensure that they model respectful relationships and gender equality practices across the entire school community. By embedding those values into the fabric of the school environment, we create a culture that actively challenges harmful stereotypes and promotes positive, healthy relationships. Yet last year, we saw the RSHE review become unnecessarily politicised and hijacked by sensationalist headlines and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, serving only to fuel division. We cannot afford to play politics with the health, safety and wellbeing of our children. The focus of any review of RSHE should be on how we can equip young people with the knowledge and tools that they need to navigate the modern world safely. It should address the urgent need to tackle the rise of online misogyny, the increasing prevalence of violence against women and girls, and the damaging impact of pornography and exploitative media on young people’s perceptions of relationships.
I recently heard from a young constituent, Maddie, who is here today. She was deeply affected by the loss of a teacher in our community and wrote to me expressing her frustration that while the conversation on violence against women and girls often focuses on policing and reporting, prevention is often overlooked. She told me how her cousin, a newly qualified teacher, was asked to deliver RSHE lessons despite feeling completely unprepared to do so. She is right to be frustrated. Young people overwhelmingly support strong education on relationships, with 87% saying that there should be more teaching about relationships, abuse and sexual health. We owe it to them to listen.
RSHE is often an afterthought, added in as an extra and delivered by teachers who are not specifically trained for it. Many are simply given a sheet of paper to read from and do not know how to answer the follow-up questions. That is why I am calling for urgent reforms to RSHE, including: updating the outdated 2019 guidance to reflect the realities of young people’s lives today; extending RSHE up to key stage 5 so that it reaches 16 to 18-year-olds; making RSHE a key component of initial teacher training, ensuring that new teachers are properly equipped to deliver it; and investing in training for school leaders, teachers and governors to understand the online spaces that young people navigate today.
We cannot afford to wait until another young woman becomes a statistic. We must act now to equip the next generation with the knowledge and resilience that they need to build safe, healthy relationships. Teaching children about harmful gender stereotypes, consent, respect and healthy peer relationships from the earliest stages is key to preventing violence against women and girls. I urge the Government to prioritise prevention, invest in education and listen to the voices of our young people who are asking us for change. The time for action is now.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I remind all hon. Members that they should continue to stand if they wish to contribute to the debate. Given the number of those who have indicated that they wish to contribute, I ask people to limit themselves to about four minutes, and I hope we will be able to get everybody in.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this crucial debate.
I am sure we can all agree that every aspect of a child’s education is important and plays a crucial role in shaping them into well-rounded members of society, but there is a strong argument that no lesson is more valuable in shaping our young people than relationship and sex education. From teaching the basics of puberty, reproduction and how to engage in an adult relationship, to understanding issues around consent, abuse and sexual and gender identity, good-quality relationship and sex education gives children a crucial basis for relationships. It will influence their interactions with others for the rest of their lives.
The reality is that in the UK, we are failing to provide our children with the quality relationship and sex education that they need. That is leading to a number of issues and gaps in their understanding of healthy relationships. Our children’s RSE classes are grossly inadequate and severely outdated, and in some cases, are not taught at all. Despite RSE being compulsory for all primary school pupils, 50% of students reported receiving no RSE classes during the covid lockdown. We are talking, of course, about age-appropriate sex education, because the catch-all term and sensationalist headlines have led some parents to believe that their children are being taught things at certain ages when they are obviously not. That has only helped to fuel certain issues, which has been awful for promoting the healthy and proper teaching of relationship and sex education.
The latest Sex Education Forum report found that only 50% of the 16 to 17-year-olds surveyed rated their RSE classes as “good” or “very good”. That is an improvement on the previous year’s findings, but it still demonstrates that the relationship and sex education of our young people is simply not good enough.
Hopefully, everybody has by now heard about the truly gripping Netflix drama, “Adolescence”. For any Members who have not yet seen it, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. It is a crucial watch for anyone who works with, or indeed, legislates for children, as we do. As we have heard, it touches on a number of issues relating to incel culture, the manosphere and the increasingly concerning attitude towards women and girls that is infecting our young boys.
We often talk about incel culture and toxic attitudes towards women, and indeed men, but we fail to properly come up with solutions on how to tackle them. We land on things such as limiting social media access for young people, placing more onus on social media sites to monitor online chatter and take down harmful posts and videos, or reducing the airtime given to toxic individuals who perpetuate this kind of nonsense. Those are all really useful options that we have to consider and take action on, but they are far from the solution. We really ought to look at the role that education can play in combating misinformed views.
The core of relationship and sex education, beyond the basics of biology, is to teach children about healthy relationships. It is about teaching young girls and boys how to properly respect and interact with someone they are in a relationship with, whether that is romantic, sexual, platonic or familial. Their understanding of these relationships can be informed by good-quality education, and it goes without saying that the opposite is also true. Poor-quality RSE can drastically impact a child’s understanding of relationships and cause untold damage.
We need comprehensive relationship and sex education that is age-appropriate and delivered by well-trained teachers, who could be crucial in combating toxic incel ideology, or who, at the very least, would provide students with correct information that counters the stuff they read on the internet or watch on YouTube. Effective classes can provide a safe, non-judgmental space for children to ask questions. If they do not have that, we risk either leaving their questions unanswered or leaving them to the mercy of some Andrew Tate-esque figures who will fill their heads with poison. Both options are cause for concern, but the latter is nearly unthinkable.
Like all forms of discrimination, misogyny is ignorance. Education is the best tool against ignorance, but it has to be properly funded and teachers have to be properly trained to deliver it. I sincerely hope to hear from the Minister about the concrete steps that the Government will take to invest in RSE. Making it compulsory is important, but proper funding and training mean, ultimately, that it will be done well. It being done badly is almost as bad as not teaching it at all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, for the third time this afternoon—we are on a roll here. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate, on a subject that can be quite difficult—I think that is a fair way of putting it. I will give a parental perspective. The hon. Member and I are not in opposition to each other, but I want to put my view on record.
I am pleased to represent the case for Northern Ireland—I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) will do something similar—and parents who want to have a say on what their children are taught in school. My contribution will be about the importance of parental rights. Many Members will be aware that there has been a shift in the content that schools teach and that is approved by boards of governors, who should be allowed to ensure that RSE in taught in line with community values. There should be a commitment to best practice and good relations between parents and teachers. That always has to be there, and is a key issue in schools.
Such commitment is found at Victoria primary school in Newtownards, in my constituency of Strangford, where parents were brought to an open night, the evening before teaching was to take place with the children, to allow interested parents to know the way in which sensitive topics would be taught, and give them tools that could help them to follow up with their child afterwards. I felt that was a constructive and positive way forward.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She always tries to reassure us, and I seek such reassurance in her response. The sensitive approach that I described was welcomed by parents, and speaks well of a school that looks at education holistically, including home life, which is part of who we are. There is no doubt that teachers play a central role in helping children to grow into successful adults who are equipped with the skills that they need to be safe in a fast-moving world. It is a much faster world than the one in which I was brought up, but I am of a certain age, so people will probably understand that.
Some of the most contentious issues will be taught in RSE. I believe that parents have every right to exercise their authority over what they deem safe and appropriate for their children to be taught. I am putting the marker down clearly for parents, on behalf of their children. There are issues of a personal nature and matters of morality, and it is best left to parents to decide how to raise their children. Their input into this process must be critical. It is not for the state to decide the morality and standards of each family in the United Kingdom. I say that with respect to people. I want to be quite clear: we understand that parents raise children differently. I may disagree with others about what they choose to teach their children, but this is a democratic society, where all values must be respected, no matter how much we disagree with them, in order to uphold freedom of conscience and religion.
There is a blurry line between relationships education and sex education but I will always be a voice for parents, and for them to deem what is appropriate for their child to be taught in school. There must be regulation to ensure that, should a school decide to implement changes to RSE, a parent has a right to withdraw their child, if it is going the wrong way and the parents do not like it. I put that marker down as well.
I urge the Government not to push forward any changes that would diminish parental authority and control. I ask the Minister to continue to speak with her counterparts in the devolved nations to ensure that parents who are genuinely seeking to safeguard their children are afforded respect, in terms of the classroom syllabus, and have their rights to reasonably held views protected. Parental rights, first and foremost.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate. A couple of weeks ago, at Prime Minister’s questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) noted the significance of “Adolescence”, the series produced by Stephen Graham and starring Christine Tremarco that I think has touched all hon. Members. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s call for screenings in schools. It is crucial to spark conversation, education and urgent change around online male radicalisation, and violence against women and girls. Like, I hope, everyone in this Chamber, I was assured and pleased by the Prime Minister’s response.
I recognise that a real and abhorrent problem is being perpetuated in our society. We are experiencing an epidemic of gender-based violence. We have had a disjointed approach to tackling that epidemic, and that approach has failed. We have failed to protect women and girls from violence, failed to improve outcomes for victims and failed to combat deep-rooted sexism and misogyny across the UK. Instead, I see from my casework an increase in peer-on-peer abuse cases in primary and secondary schools.
Schools should be safe spaces and provide a secure environment for children to learn—places that parents should feel comfortable sending their children. We need to ensure that safeguarding is in place to ensure that protection. Children going to school and experiencing abuse is despicable and inexcusable. We need to urgently look at how we address these issues, and the curriculum must ensure that exposure to social media and online platforms providing violent, misogynistic, racist and homophobic content can be properly countered.
I want to briefly mention the family of Holly Newton—a constituent of mine who was tragically murdered by her former boyfriend—who campaign tirelessly to raise awareness around recognising signs of domestic abuse. I associate myself with the calls from Holly’s mum for lowering the age that teenagers can be considered domestic abuse victims. When I look out my office window on Beaumont Street in Hexham, there is a wonderful installation of ribbons dedicated to victims of domestic abuse, with a single ribbon for Holly of a different colour, to emphasise that she is not counted in those statistics. It is something incredibly moving whenever I look at it.
Since I was elected I have worked with Northumberland domestic abuse services, which provide valuable support to some of the most vulnerable people across England’s most sparsely populated county. I have spoken to many people in this Chamber about the rural issues we face with addressing those unique challenges. The staff and volunteers at NDAS are truly some of the most inspirational people I have met in my short time in this House.
When I go out and visit schools across the constituency, whether in the more urbanised parts of the Tyne valley belt, or in the far-flung north or south of the constituency, one of the things that teachers express to me is a concern that male students are being bombarded with this toxic view of the world. I was born in 1991, and I consider myself to be relatively young. I grew up when Facebook was still a new thing, and for someone to get their first Facebook account they almost had to have a chat with their mum and dad about it to get their sign-off.
I was exposed to what we thought was an online revolution, but it was a drip feed compared to the tsunami that this generation are exposed to. For this generation to have been through the pandemic, and now to go through this, is incredibly concerning and shocking. It makes me realise how much the world has shifted under our feet in the decade and a half since I was in the education system.
Anna Dixon
Did my hon. Friend hear Gareth Southgate talking in the Richard Dimbleby lecture about the fact that boys need positive male role models in the real world—people like football coaches, scout leaders, youth club leaders and more male teachers? I wondered if my hon. Friend would agree that having real-world role models would help boys in the face of that tsunami of online abuse?
Joe Morris
It will probably not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I have seen everything that Gareth Southgate has said since he left being England manager. My fiancée had to talk me into taking down a mocked-up Time “Man of the Year” Gareth Southgate work of art, shortly after she moved in—I think I am getting dragged slightly off course.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to save the hon. Gentleman from himself. I remind him that we need to proceed to other speakers, so I ask him to draw his remarks to a close.
Joe Morris
I will shortly wind up. I am pleased that progress is being made in putting specialist rape and sexual offences teams into every police force, and with improving how domestic abuse is processed in 999 handling. It is a matter of culture. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell again on bringing forward this important debate, and allowing all Members to discuss how we tackle this emerging, growing and potentially endemic problem.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will try to call the Opposition Front Benchers, who will have five minutes each, from 5.08 pm, and then the Minister after that. I am afraid we can therefore no longer allow four minutes per speaker if everyone is to get in; speeches that last nearer to three minutes will help. I ask all colleagues to adhere to that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for calling me to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this Westminster Hall debate.
The Government have set ambitious targets to tackle violence against women and girls, but those goals will not be achieved without addressing relationship education in our schools. Ending violence is first about prevention; teaching children from a young age what a healthy relationship looks like is key to achieving change. Children need to be taught about respect, consent and equality. We Liberal Democrats have long supported comprehensive, inclusive and evidence-based relationship education in our schools. It is crucial that these lessons also include information about inclusivity and the needs of LGBT students.
The well-documented Ofsted review in 2021 revealed shocking levels of sexual harassment in UK schools; indeed, it found that sexual harassment was so widespread that it must be addressed for all children and young people. The review highlighted several key issues. One of the biggest concerns was that students did not feel the need to report harassment because they saw it as normal. That shows how ingrained unhealthy behaviours can be in our schools. Even teachers were often unaware of the scale of the problem, not realising how serious it was.
I will quickly refer to the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, which addressed upskirting. Years ago, young boys were doing it quite regularly and they just thought that it was a laugh, not realising that there were victims nor how deeply hurt and victimised those who were targeted felt. That is exactly where relationship training starts: with someone understanding what they are actually doing to somebody else. That can only be done through good education in schools, where these things are openly discussed rather than just skirted around.
Relationship and sex education must teach what constitutes acceptable behaviour. Many teachers admitted that they were not properly prepared to teach these sensitive topics. When a maths or science teacher is asked to teach about consent, healthy relationships or the sharing of sexual images, it is no surprise that they feel underqualified. I was one of those teachers who tried to teach 14 or 15-year-old boys. Clearly, boys of that age already know quite a lot, so we cannot just talk to them about the bees and the butterflies. Sex and relationship education should start earlier than in secondary school, by which time young people have already acquired a lot of unhealthy information that we can only try to catch up with, if we know where they got that information from and the extent of it.
The Women and Equalities Committee published a report in 2023 that found that the delivery of relationship and sex education has been inconsistent; I think that was a polite way of saying “not good enough”. The report also suggested that the Government took further steps to ensure that teachers have the time and resources to learn how to deliver such lessons effectively. I hope that we do not have to wait for another report before we finally address these issues.
In the online world that we live in, algorithms often target young people with harmful content, whether it is misogynistic—such as the content of Andrew Tate, who spread toxic views on women—or influencers sharing dangerous content about eating disorders. Social media is full of risks. These platforms must take responsibility for the content that is shared on them. The Online Safety Act 2023 aimed to make the internet safer for children and young people. It holds social media platforms accountable for harmful content, but they alone cannot deliver change. If the Government are serious about ending violence against women and girls, they must take sex and relationship education seriously. As I said, I suggest that we start such education earlier than in secondary school.
Ultimately, teaching children from a young age what a healthy relationship looks like is the most important thing that we can teach our children. It is time that we empower young people with a range of knowledge about healthy relationships, consent, online safety and inclusivity.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
With apologies to all concerned, I am afraid that I now have to impose a two-minute time limit to get everybody in.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate on a subject that I know is very close to her heart. I do not need to declare an interest, but prior to being elected as an MP I worked with young women and girls in schools on this specific issue, so it is something that I really care about. Very quickly, I know how seriously this Government take this issue, and I will always be proud to stand under our commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade.
Right now, however, the evidence speaks for itself. In 2022, Revealing Reality found that 60% of 15 to 18-year-old girls had been asked by someone to send a nude picture of themselves; anecdotally, I think that that proportion is much less than the actual reality. Nevertheless, that is a staggering statistic, highlighting the urgent need for robust and comprehensive relationship education.
Peer-on-peer sexual harassment is also a growing concern, exacerbated by the rapid rise of technology and social media, as others have mentioned. The work of organisations such as Girlguiding sheds light on the lived experiences of young people, particularly girls who face harassment, coercion and harmful social pressures. Its 2023 report found that only a quarter of young people felt that their questions about sex and relationships were not answered by RSHE lessons in schools. “We don’t tell our teachers,” a 2022 report by Estyn, the Welsh version of Ofsted, found that many young people do not disclose their experiences of harassment or abuse to teachers because they feel that they will not be taken seriously, or that nothing will change. Schools must be environments where students feel safe to speak up, and we need to start equipping teachers with the right training and support.
Some argue that relationship education should be left to parents. Although parents play a vital role in explaining healthy relationships, schools also play a central role in creating a safe, structured environment where young people can learn about healthy relationships in an evidence-based way. As I said, I am proud of this Government’s commitments to women and girls—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we must move on.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate.
We have some fantastic statutory guidance from 2020 and draft guidance from 2024. I would love to hear from the Minister when the Government are likely to respond to that draft guidance, because quite a lot has already been done in this area and we must take account of that. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the rights of parents. One of the safeguards included in previous guidance was to enable them to see curriculum materials and to have the option to opt out. It is vital that that is included in anything coming forward.
I want to touch on the Plymouth violence against women and girls commission, which I chaired, and was instituted as a result of two tragedies in the city in 2021 and 2022. One of the recommendations of our report was for a whole-school approach to tackling violence against women and girls—something that has been mentioned—and it would be very good to hear from the Minister on that. That is also highlighted in the End Violence Against Women Coalition’s report “It’s #AboutTime”. Sex education is one thing and relationship education is another, but embedding healthy relationships and tackling misogyny and sexism right across the school community is vital. We need to look at that going forward.
The key issue is the inconsistency of what we are finding across schools locally. I was alarmed to receive an email from a young lesbian, who at 18 years old says that she only recently found out that sexually transmitted diseases could be contracted by young women who are same-sex attracted. That highlights the inconsistency in the delivery of the existing guidance—something we need to look at. If young women like her are experiencing that, what are they also not receiving? There is a huge amount to tackle: porn, VAWG and dealing with all of those sexist behaviours. I know that this will not be the last debate that we have on these issues, and I look forward to contributing in future.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate.
When I became a new parent, I was shocked to my core to see in my communities, both in person and online, the extent to which relationships between new parents can suddenly descend into coercive control, gaslighting, financial abuse and, in the worst cases—still far too many—physical abuse. The For Baby’s Sake Trust found that 40% of parents who experienced domestic abuse said that it occurred during their baby’s first 1,001 days—from pregnancy until the baby’s second birthday. It is critical that we embed healthy relationships early on.
I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health in the UK, and I recently chaired a roundtable to celebrate 20 years since the teenage pregnancy prevention framework. The key asks were about focusing reforms on upstream prevention, rather than downstream crisis management. I would love to see more support for parents as their children receive relationship guidance in school. A huge number of young people will receive strong, progressive advice from schools about relationships, then go home to a place where those progressive relationships do not exist. If, via the information that a child brings home from school, a parent realises that they are in a relationship that is not okay—such as one that is financially abusive or controlling—so much the better.
Chloe Combi recently wrote a powerful piece in The Independent about the TV show “Adolescence”, in which she pointed out that very little commentary on the show has asked what young people themselves thought about it. Multiple organisations, including Brook, have highlighted the importance of including the student voice in RSHE curriculum design. In the 2009 guidance, schools were instructed to consult parents; however, for RSE to be relevant, the needs and preferences of pupils must also be reflected in the lessons taught in schools. I pay tribute to Chloe Combi and others such as Jo Davies at the WILD Young Parents Project, for being on the frontline of how we can instil great relationships among young people.
Finally, as a society, the reality is that we are often not great at relationships as adults. Therefore, as we protect and extend relationship advice to young people, I hope that we have the humility to learn alongside them, too.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Jeremy. We are living in a time marked by increasing polarisation. Teenage boys and girls are drifting apart, driven by an online culture that fills a void where important discussions should be happening. I have spoken to teachers across my constituency, and the picture that they paint is a troubling one. They have reported that the behaviour in schools, particularly from boys, is deteriorating, with a notable disparity in how male and female staff are treated. Teachers in North East Hampshire and across the country are working tirelessly, yet behavioural issues are worsening. Online sexist cultures are manifesting themselves in many ways, including in the form of persistent backchat towards female teachers.
High-profile online influencers have found their way to reach boys and young men who are struggling with their identities and masculinity. We must rethink our understanding of masculinity, and what it means to be a man. We must do so in a safe, supportive environment that nurtures healthy development and respect. Feminism is not a dirty word—it is as good for men and boys as it is for women and girls, but that part of the conversation is frequently missing. Worryingly, abusive behaviour within young relationships is increasingly common, and most incidences of online sexual abuse now involve children offending against other children. Some 61% of children and young people also reported that they were unsure and unaware of where to seek support if affected by domestic abuse.
Schools are hubs of learning and centres of influence. Children must be able to define their place in the world, understand their identity and feel empowered to be themselves within an environment of support and understanding. Only with that can we expect young people to have the tools to navigate the internet and their real life interactions positively and safely. We must create legislation, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) in her excellent opening remarks that paves the way for a curriculum that prepares—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. Again, I apologise for interrupting.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing such an important debate.
It is fair to say that the TV drama “Adolescence” has captured the imagination of the nation. It has shone a spotlight on our collective failure to ensure that we are keeping pace with the range of harmful content around sex, gender and relationships that young people are increasingly exposed to online. I know that for many parents, young people and those working in this profession, it just highlighted trends that have been all too apparent for quite some time. Some of the most heartbreaking moments that I have as an MP is when I speak to young people and their parents about the harms that they have been exposed to online, because we simply have not equipped them to be safe in experiencing them.
Whether from the Children’s Commissioner or from Ofsted, there are some damning statistics about the violent pornography and graphic sexual misogynistic content that young people are now exposed to, and the way in which that is bleeding into their attitudes towards women, sex and relationships in schools and later in life. There is no doubt that this has been exacerbated by a social media landscape that often atomises young people’s interactions with new ideas and narratives when it comes to sex and relationships, and whose algorithms can often prompt and reinforce harmful voices and content rather than promote critical reflection. It is little wonder that against such a backdrop, really toxic voices such as Andrew Tate, have started to take root. Although there was some good news in More in Common’s research into young people’s role models, it should scare a lot of us that 25% of 16 to 21-year-olds saw Andrew Tate as someone who young people are likely to look up to.
The solutions cut right across Government. I think it is be safe to say that, judging from the debates I have shared with some colleagues in this room, many of us would like Ofcom to go much further in its implementation of children’s code to ensure that we are doing much more to protect young people from exposure to some of these harms. We owe it to the young people in school right now to ensure that the curriculum is setting them up the best that it can, leveraging the best practice resources that organisations such as Internet Watch Foundation have out there already, including helping young people challenge image sharing online and ensuring that, collectively, we do not lose the moment that—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. Again, I apologise. I call Carla Lockhart, if she can keep herself to one minute.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this debate forward, although she and I will differ on some of the gender ideology.
I believe that when the Government introduce the RSHE regulations they need to be Cass-compliant. Dr Hilary Cass pointed out in her review that the importance of what happens in schools cannot be overestimated. Some schools have been guilty of engaging in the potentially dangerous process of socially transitioning children. They go along with the child’s wish to identify as a sex other than their birth sex. I encourage the Government, when introducing the regulations, to take up the helpful recommendation that schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity. Above all, they should take on board parental input and also school ethos; schools with a Christian ethos should be able to uphold that ethos when teaching relationship education.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady and all Members for their co-operation. We now move on to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this incredibly important debate.
As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber today, it is vital that all children and young people are equipped to develop safe, healthy and happy relationships, and it is vital that they recognise what is inappropriate, unacceptable and abusive behaviour. Parents and carers, and wider family and friend networks, as well as schools, have an important role to play in developing this knowledge and understanding. However, we cannot take this knowledge for granted. As we have heard with the proliferation of harmful online content served up to our children and young people, they are at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how we should be interacting with each other.
According to Internet Matters, girls experience a disproportionate level of harm online, with three in four girls aged 13 to 16 reporting harmful online experiences. Sadly, this translates into inappropriate behaviour in real life. Despite some really excellent work that I have heard about from secondary schools in my constituency, worryingly, a survey by Kingston and Richmond Youth Council found that 40% of girls had been physically followed in a way that made them feel unsafe or uncomfortable and 50% had felt pressured into sending intimate pictures of themselves online, but 83% of those who experienced sexual harassment did not report it. The survey also found that over 20% of boys were not confident of knowing that exposure of body parts is a form of sexual harassment, and 69% were unsure whether they would intervene if they witnessed their friends sexually harassing someone.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council warned last year that young boys were being radicalised by influencers such as Andrew Tate, and talked of epidemic levels of violence against women and girls, driven in part by extreme online misogyny. That is why I was so shocked to hear the Leader of the Opposition be so dismissive of the issue on LBC today, saying that there were bigger problems that we should be focused on. We need a culture change in all aspects of society, and we need to encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against toxic masculinity, to demonstrate to the young men in their lives what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and that this is a strength, not a weakness.
That culture change must come in part from the education that we provide in the classroom. Age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play alongside the role of parents and carers. The Liberal Democrats believe that an age-appropriate RSE curriculum should be led by a qualified teacher and delivered in a safe, non-judgmental setting, and should include teaching about sexual consent, LGBTQ+ relationships and issues surrounding explicit images, because all young people deserve access to high quality education that empowers them to make safe and informed choices. In addition, ensuring children learn about consent, healthy relationships, and online risks such as pornography and sexting is essential for safeguarding.
Schools and teachers need proper funding, training and support as well as resources to deliver high quality RSHE. Therefore, we Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for specialist RSE training to ensure that teachers feel confident in delivering sensitive topics effectively. I hope the Minister will confirm when she plans to publish the updated RSHE guidance. She responded to a written question from me today, but again it did not set out the timelines; I do not know if she can fill us in when she gets up to speak.
Before I finish, I will touch on what we must press the social media giants to do; they need to be regulated much more toughly. Sir Jeremy, I know you were pretty active on the Online Safety Bill when it was going through Parliament, and have been active since. We must see it implemented vigorously. The Liberal Democrats want to see the digital age of consent raised, and will push for that change through the Data (Use and Access) Bill.
Seriously tackling violence against women and girls has to start with prevention. We have got to tackle the online giants, but schools must also play a key role in education. We must support an education system in which every child is free to be themselves and reach their full potential, unencumbered by fear and abuse, and receiving the support they need to thrive.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate on relationship education in schools, as well as for touching on the harrowing stories of violence against women and girls in her constituency. Before I proceed further, I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, colleagues and pupils of those impacted.
In the decade between 2008 to 2018, around three women a week were killed by men in the UK. Shockingly, around one in four women have been raped or sexually assaulted. This shows the gravity of the misogyny in our society faced by women and girls. Although relationship education can only go so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it plays an important role in educating our young people on what positive and healthy relationships look like and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including that of coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help.
Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. Although schools are able to determine their own curriculum, they must have regard to the statutory guidance released in 2019. From my experience of looking at some of the school materials used, it seems that focus in relationship education has a tendency to gravitate towards other topics rather than spending the necessary amount of time on propagating positive and respectful relationships between boys and girls and addressing many of the issues raised today. That is something that schools and the Government need to reflect on.
An important part of relationship education is teaching young people about the risks and harms of the internet and social media. With damaging online porn available at the touch of a button on smartphones, young men are fed a constant stream of misogynistic content that will change how they view women and girls. While they are able to access hours of degrading and violent content directed at women whenever they like, the relatively small amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset the harmful influence. That is why the Conservatives have called for a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s, which would at least go part of the way in promoting children’s wellbeing and protecting them from harmful content on social media during the school day.
It is also important to note that, for many young people, the distinction between the online and media world can be blurred, so they need the skills to navigate that safely. We all know that people feel more anonymous online, say things that they would never say face to face and may even present themselves as someone different to who they actually are. On top of this, they are fed a stream of factually incorrect information and unobtainable body images.
In accordance with Department for Education guidance, schools should be alive to issues such as everyday sexism, misogyny, homophobia and gender stereotypes, and take positive action to build a culture where those are not tolerated. In spite of this, sexual violence and harassment does, I am afraid to say, take place in schools. It is vital that such behaviours are not tolerated and are never acceptable. Any reports of sexual violence or harassment should be taken seriously, and it must be recognised that girls are much more likely to be victims, with boys the most likely perpetrator. With that being said, it is vital that our boys are not made to feel that this behaviour is inevitable as a result of them being male. Indeed, it is only a minority who behave in this way.
When it comes to our boys, we should value their unique attributes and not demonise them or make them feel bad for having masculine traits. These traits are not, in the great majority of cases, toxic. The requirement to deliver RHSE has led to a surge in outside providers making available their resources to schools. Some are good, and some are not so good. The guidance is clear that schools should not, under any circumstances, work with or use materials produced by external agencies that take or promote extreme political positions. Accordingly, schools are required to assess each resource to ensure it is age-appropriate and sensitive to their needs, and should provide examples to parents on request. Parents should be given every opportunity to understand the purpose and content of materials, and it is certainly not appropriate for such materials to be withheld under the guise of copyright restrictions.
All parents have a right to know what a school is teaching their child. It was confirmed by the previous Education Secretary in the Conservative Government that materials used in the classroom can be shared, irrespective of copyright restrictions. It should never be forgotten that parents and carers are ultimately responsible for the education of their children, so in most cases teaching in schools should be done with parents, not contrary to them, and in a way that is sympathetic to their values and beliefs. That starts with being transparent about what is being taught.
It is also important to note that schools have a legal obligation to be politically impartial when teaching, which means that children must be offered a balanced presentation of opposing views. It seems that many schools have struggled with the impartiality requirement on this specific topic, which drove additional guidance to be released in 2022. I note the reference to a backlash—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I know the hon. Lady will be swiftly coming to a conclusion so that we can get the Minister in.
Rebecca Paul
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
I note the reference to a backlash against RHSE lessons due to anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, and I want to push back on that. It is not unreasonable for parents to raise their concerns about schools teaching factually incorrect, ideological and damaging content about gender identity. They are right to do so, and it is the responsible thing to do. I agree that the teaching of such harmful concepts as fact has done damage to the important subject of RHSE as a whole.
In closing—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we really must move on to the Minister.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate on relationship education in school, and I thank her for highlighting the vital role that education plays in preventing violence, including violence against women and girls. I know that she has fought long and hard for justice for victims of violence and domestic abuse, and that she recently spoke about these issues in this main Chamber. She stood alongside members of her community after the tragic murder of her constituents Emma and Lettie Pattison, and I take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to everyone affected by that.
As a schools Minister and a mum, I know it is vital that we reach children early, before harmful attitudes take root. The classroom must be a place where they learn the values of respect, equality and consent from the very start, and the aim of relationship education is to support all young people to build positive relationships and to keep themselves and others safe. That education must equip them for adult life, and to make a positive contribution to society. It really is a top priority for the Government, and it is central to our mission to make the country’s streets safer.
I want to get straight to the heart of the problem and acknowledge the important role of not only schools, but all services that support young people to thrive. The Government’s opportunity mission is dedicated to setting up every child with the best start in life, helping all children to achieve and thrive in school, and building skills that will allow young people to forge happy, healthy and fulfilling lives. “Opportunity”, “thriving”, “belonging” and “purpose” are not just nice words; they are the foundations of healthy individuals and a healthy society, and they are the best tools we have for helping young people to build healthy relationships and for combating violence and prejudice, including misogyny.
Misogyny is not innate. It is learned behaviour, which is why I agree that we must not talk as if boys and young men are the problem. The rise of misogynistic influencers online is a symptom of a number of wider issues that we must address. As part of this mission, we will equip our young people and children with the skills they need to form strong, positive relationships. We will support them to learn about kindness and respect. We will equip them to navigate a world in which 79% of young people have seen violent pornography before they turn 18, in which social media platforms routinely expose young people to misogynistic and violent content, and in which more and more of our social interactions are online. Our review of the statutory guidance for relationship, sex and health education has young people and their wellbeing at its heart, and we are working as quickly as we can to publish revised guidance as soon as possible this year.
We have spoken to teachers, experts and young people, and we are determined to harness their collective wisdom and change the conversation about relationships. Young people have told us that they want their relationship education to be interactive and participatory and to reflect the real complexities of building positive relationships. Experts have told us that they need support to help young people to develop the skills for healthy communication, empathy and emotional regulation. Telling young people about consent is not enough. Telling them about the law is not enough. Young people deserve better than that. They deserve to have teachers who will role-model honest and kind communication about sex, emotions, empathy and kindness.
Let us not pretend relationships are easy. Children need support, starting in early primary, to develop the skills they need for handling disappointment, for paying attention to the needs and boundaries of others and for understanding their own needs and feelings. In secondary schools, teachers must step up to the challenge of opening difficult conversations with their pupils. We know that many teachers already do that brilliantly.
Young people need to learn that romantic and sexual relationships are about care, kindness and generosity and about communication, listening and connection; they must also learn that pornography is not a true representation of sex. Our revised statutory guidance will ensure that relationships and sex education reflects the reality of young people today. Artificial intelligence, the dominance of social media, the availability of pornography and the rise in online misogyny—we cannot ignore the impacts of these trends on young people. Our revised statutory guidance for RSHE will be clear that teachers must be equipped to open conversations with boys and girls about what positive masculinity and femininity mean today and to help young people to develop positive role models that support their self-esteem and their sense of purpose.
Anna Dixon
Parents of LGBTQ+ children are concerned that the 2024 guidance that the previous Government consulted on is providing a hostile environment and preventing conversations about trans and non-binary children from happening. Would the Minister would consider reverting to the 2023 guidance?
Catherine McKinnell
We will publish our RSHE guidance as soon as possible, and it will be focused on keeping children’s wellbeing at its heart.
Education can support young people to develop positive attitudes towards people who are different from them and to exercise critical thinking when they encounter situations involving harmful behaviour and harmful sexual violence. These are conversations that we need to have collectively; without stigmatising boys or treating them as the problem, we must recognise that good relationship skills benefit everybody—boys and girls, men and women.
Our intention is that the revised guidance will spark a culture change in the delivery of RSHE and that it will signal our high aspirations for RSHE. We recognise that schools and teachers need support to have these conversations with young people, and we are exploring how best to provide that support in the current tight financial circumstances. That work is a central part of the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We cannot achieve that without a significant culture change around equality and our conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Culture change goes beyond schools, but it can germinate from the ideas that children are exposed to in schools, the ways they learn to relate to those who are different from them and the sense of purpose and belonging that schools can provide.
I cannot emphasise how much I welcome the renewed focus on violence against women and girls following the release of the new Netflix drama “Adolescence”, which many Members mentioned. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for providing the opportunity to continue that conversation in this debate.
It is not a new issue for any of us. In 2020, Everyone’s Invited started to collect the testimonies of young people who had experienced sexual violence and sexual abuse, and in 2021, Ofsted published its review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges. Everyone’s Invited has shown us that rape culture and misogyny are increasingly appearing in primary schools, and we will publish a new tackling violence against women and girls strategy later this year, which will set out what further actions we will take as well as the progress that we have made so far.
Turning the tide on misogyny will not be a simple task, and we all need to keep talking about it. We need to keep learning, we need to keep challenging and we need to ensure that boys and young men remain part of that conversation.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We do not have enough time for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to wind up the debate, I am afraid, but I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered relationship education in schools.
Defence Reform
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Today this Government are bringing in the deepest reforms in UK Defence for 50 years, which will fundamentally change the way defence operates.
Defence must change to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The Government’s recent announcement of the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the cold war—rising to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament—is crucial for our national security. It is also a huge opportunity, and responsibility, for UK Defence.
Alongside this significant investment, must come serious reform: to speed up our decision making, focus on outcomes, secure faster delivery and achieve the best value for money for our troops and taxpayers.
Under the Secretary of State and Ministers, UK Defence will now be led by a strengthened Department of State, a fully-fledged Military Strategic Headquarters, a new National Armaments Director Group, and the Defence Nuclear Enterprise.
Our new leadership “Quad”—the Permanent Secretary, Chief of the Defence Staff, National Armaments Director, and Chief of Defence Nuclear—will drive a defence which is more concentrated on strengthening warfighting readiness and deterrence. They will shift an organisation which too often has been obsessed with process to one focused on outcomes—in which information flows quickly, individual accountabilities are clear, and results are demanded.
The key features of our new system will be:
The Permanent Secretary will lead a more agile Department of State. In line with wider civil service reform, this area will be lean and highly skilled, unleashing the exceptional capabilities within Defence by making the systems and processes around us more efficient and empowering. This area will be responsible for providing policy muscle and clear strategic direction to ensure that Defence is focused on outcomes and delivery. The Department of State will contain a streamlined set of four DG roles reporting to the Permanent Secretary, focused on strategy and transformation, people, policy and finance.
Our armed forces show great courage and collaboration in the work they do on operations to keep our country secure at home and strong abroad. The UK armed forces’ most senior officer, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), will, for the first time since this role was created, now command the service chiefs and head a newly-established Military Strategic Headquarters as the single point of force design and delivery of the armed forces. The new MSHQ will support the journey from a “joint” to an “integrated” force that better harnesses all five domains of maritime, air, land, cyber and space. They will be supported by a small central team integrating across activity and force design, prioritising investment to improve warfighting readiness and lethality.
The National Armaments Director Group will fix the broken procurement system and make defence an engine for economic growth in every corner of the UK. It will bring together teams delivering the national “arsenal”, the Government’s defence industrial strategy and end-to-end acquisition under one leader, the National Armaments Director. This new structure will enable collaboration by bringing together Defence Equipment and Support, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Digital and parts of Defence Support. The group will also include roles focused on international collaboration and exports, commercial and industry, options and commissioning, and corporate, with the Enterprise CIO moving to the group by 1 July 2025. These roles will work together, and with industry, academia, international partners and allies to develop and deliver innovative solutions to departmental problems.
The Chief of Defence Nuclear is responsible for cohering across the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE), in addition to leading the Defence Nuclear Organisation (DNO) and its arm’s length bodies. The DNE unites the Royal Navy, Strategic Command and DNO, with its ALBs including the Submarine Delivery Agency and AWE—the partnership of organisations that maintain, renew, and sustain the UK’s nuclear deterrent which keeps us and our NATO allies safe 24/7. The financial nuclear ringfence ensures nuclear spending is prioritised and allows a focus on delivery and outcomes. Under Defence reform, CDN will act as the clear point of accountability for the ringfence, working closely with industry and the MSHQ finance teams to ensure effective management.
We will have four new budget holders, one for each of the Quad. Funding and spend will be categorised into invest, readiness and operate—with the NAD holding the invest budget and MSHQ responsible for the operate budget and the readiness budget of the frontline commands. Balance of investment decisions will be made across the whole Department, set against Ministers’ strategic priorities to ensure resources match ambitions. The principal accounting officer will delegate multi-year budgets, in line with HM Treasury’s departmental spending settlement, to each area. Financial year 2025-26 will be a transitional year, with quarterly reform programme milestones through the year and the bulk of the transformation complete by financial year 2026-27. The drive to reform Defence will continue throughout this Parliament.
The far-reaching changes in this Defence reform programme will help cut waste, boost British growth and jobs, and fast-track the technologies of the future into the hands of our frontline forces.
This is the start of a new era of UK Defence.
[HCWS 573]
New Further Education College Condition Allocation
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Skills (Jacqui Smith), has made the following statement:
The Government’s first priority is economic growth, which requires a strong skills system, ensuring businesses have the expert workforces they need to grow. This Government are clear through their opportunity and growth missions that ensuring a consistent, skilled pipeline of workers is essential to the delivery of the plan for change. We need to ensure young people and adults have the opportunity to access pathways made available through education and learning. This will in turn help to drive productivity and economic growth—giving all people the opportunity to upskill and reskill to meet employer needs, fill skills shortage vacancies, and improve living standards.
Our ambition is a world class further education (FE) system that delivers for the whole nation and supports these missions. A key part of this is ensuring FE colleges are fit for the future—with better facilities and good quality sustainable buildings.
Following the autumn Budget, I am today announcing details of the investment of £302 million of capital funding to improve the condition of the further education college estate in England. An allocation of £302 million will be provided in financial year 2025-26 to all FE colleges and designated institutions in England. The aim of the investment is to ensure the FE estate is high quality and supports our skills pipeline. All FE colleges and designated institutions will receive a share of the £302 million, which will be directly allocated to them.
FE colleges are given the discretion to decide how to invest the funding in condition improvement priorities across their estates in line with guidance which the Department will publish here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-education-college-capital-allocation-2025-to-2026.
This funding is part of the £6.7 billion capital allocation the Department for Education received at the autumn Budget. This is a 19% real-terms increase from 2024-25, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to protecting education priorities against a tough fiscal context. Of this funding, £950 million is to support our skills system and provision across England in delivering the skills that will drive economic growth. As part of that investment, I am announcing today that further capital funding will be made available in 2025-26 to support capacity for rising numbers of 16 to 19 year olds in Greater Manchester combined authority and Leeds city council, which will each receive £10 million of post-16 capacity funding. This additional capacity will ensure young people continue in their education and training, spreading opportunities across the country.
[HCWS571]
Cyber-security and Resilience Policy
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
Today the Government have published a policy statement on proposed legislative measures to bolster the UK’s cyber-security and resilience.
Our digital economy and essential services are increasingly being attacked by cyber-criminals and state actors, threatening essential public services and infrastructure. This poses a serious risk not only to UK citizens, with core services like hospitals being targeted, but also to the performance of our economy. UK businesses lost around £87 billion from cyber-attacks between 2015 and 2019—that is £87 billion taken from our economy, much of which went into the hands of cyber-criminals.
Enhanced cyber-security is an essential pillar not only of our national security, but of the UK’s economic growth. We cannot have economic growth without stability, and we cannot have stability without national security.
The UK’s only existing cross-sector cyber legislation—the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations—was introduced in 2018 when the UK was still an EU member state. The rapidly evolving threat landscape and changing nature of digital services mean that these regulations need to be updated, and we no longer have powers in primary legislation to make the amendments needed.
That is why we committed to introduce a cyber-security and resilience Bill in the King’s Speech in July last year. As set out in the policy statement published today, the Bill will strengthen the UK’s cyber-defences and make sure that the critical infrastructure and digital services UK citizens and business rely on are more secure. This will enhance the UK’s level of cyber-security and resilience at a time when similar steps are being taken by our international counterparts, such as the EU, which has updated the NIS framework through its own updated directive.
The policy statement provides more detail to the Bill’s measures announced in the King’s Speech:
Expanding the scope of regulations to protect more digital services and supply chains. The Bill will bring managed IT service providers that provide digital services into the scope of the regulatory framework. The Bill will allow individual regulators to designate a small number of important suppliers to regulated entities as “critical suppliers”, including those that would otherwise be exempted from regulation as SMEs. This, in addition to embedding supply chain security requirements directly into our regulatory framework, will address supply chain vulnerabilities and reduce the threat of significant disruptions to critical services. This will build a better picture of the threats facing our critical national infrastructure and protect a broader range of services from cyber-attacks.
Empowering regulators and enhancing oversight. Regulators will be better equipped with the tools they need to perform their duties effectively, including enhanced oversight of cyber-incidents affecting regulated entities and improved cost recovery powers. The Information Commissioner’s information gathering powers will be strengthened, to improve its understanding of the landscape of cyber-security threats affecting the expanded portfolio of digital service providers that it will oversee.
Ensuring the regulatory framework can keep pace with the ever-changing cyber-landscape. The Bill will allow the Government to update the regulatory framework in the future via secondary legislation, if necessary. For example, the Government would be able to bring new sectors into scope of the regulations, if necessary to do so. The Bill will enable the Government to update the security requirements for regulated services in line with best practice, improving clarity for service providers in terms of what is expected of them.
In addition to the policy proposals outlined in the King’s Speech for inclusion in the Bill, we have identified a number of additional cyber-security and resilience proposals, as set out in the policy statement. The appropriate legislative vehicle for these has yet to be determined.
The Government propose bringing data infrastructure into the scope of the regulatory framework, recognising their new status as critical national infrastructure and essential role in ensuring the stability and growth of our digital economy. Additionally, to ensure our regulatory framework is implemented with a consistent understanding of the Government’s cyber-security and resilience objectives, we propose enabling the Secretary of State to publish a statement of strategic priorities. This will establish a unified set of objectives and expectations for regulators. Finally, we intend to provide new powers to the Secretary of State to direct a regulator, or regulated entities, to take action when it is necessary for national security. This will be invaluable in responding to the constant evolution of both the cyber-landscape and the changes in tactics used by cyber threat actors.
The Government have listened to the views expressed to the previous Government in the 2022 consultation on cyber-security to develop the Bill’s measures. The measures set out in the policy statement build on what we have learned from our engagement with key international partners, including learnings from the European Union on the implementation of the NIS2 directive (Directive (EU) 2022-2555) and 2023 data infrastructure consultation. We will continue to engage with and learn from the actions taken by other nations to improve cyber-security.
These cyber-security and resilience measures represent a significant step forward in our efforts to protect the UK from the growing threats of cyber-attacks. Cyber-security is a critical enabler of economic growth, and by protecting our digital assets and ensuring the resilience of our critical services we are creating a stable environment that fosters innovation and attracts investment.
My officials and I will engage with parliamentarians, regulators and industry groups to thoroughly test the proposals before the Bill is introduced to Parliament this year.
[HCWS572]
Death of a Member: Viscount Craigavon
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death yesterday of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Viscount’s family and friends.
E-scooters: Trials
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to release the results of the trials of e-scooters in England.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer noble Lords to the Private Member’s Bill that I have before the House at this time, creating new offences for illegally used e-scooters.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The last evaluation of the e-scooter trials took place in 2021, and the results were published in 2022, but, despite saying that they would, the last Government took no further action. As travel patterns have continued to change, the Government have decided to undertake a second evaluation, due to start this spring. This evaluation will be important to collect up-to-date and robust evidence on safety, mode shift and usage to inform future legislation. It will finish in May 2026.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, while I am grateful for that Answer, it begs the question: how many evaluations do we need? There are 1.2 million e-scooters currently illegally used in general circulation, and 47 people have been killed since 2019. The status quo cannot continue. E-scooters are mounting pavements at speed, terrorising pedestrians. I urge the noble Lord and the Government to ensure that, if the current ban on illegally operated e-scooters is not going to be observed, they look to introduce a regulatory framework with proper insurance, otherwise it is going to be a complete drain on the resources of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Your Lordships’ House will know that there have been several Questions on this subject in recent weeks, and certainly in one of them I referred the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to the regulatory regimes of 21 European countries, which, sadly, have huge variation between them with regard to minimum ages, whether you have to wear a helmet, and so forth. So the Government need up-to-date evidence. Evidence raised in 2021 could have informed legislation in 2023 and 2024, for example, but that did not happen, but now we have to inform ourselves. In the meantime, it is quite clear that hazards are involved as the noble Baroness describes—although, of course, enforcement is a matter for local police chiefs.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that half the trouble with e-scooter and e-bike rentals, and with buying them, is the batteries, which catch fire for no particular reason when they are not linked to the equipment concerned? Is not it more important to have some proper standards for quality and for the way in which batteries are fixed to cycles and scooters so that they do not cause the trouble that they have done; for example, causing TfL to ban non-folding electric bikes from its trains—and why non-folding? I hope that the Government will be able to look into this soon.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. On batteries, last October, the Department for Business and Trade launched the “Buy Safe, Be Safe” campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of buying faulty and unsafe e-bikes, e-scooters and components such as batteries, for the very reason he suggests. Noble Lords who have seen the recent film of the spontaneous e-bike fire at Rayners Lane station will understand perfectly well why Transport for London has taken that view, because anybody standing remotely near that incident would have been severely injured, if not killed, by the spontaneous explosion and subsequent fire.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that these rental e-scooter pilots have been running for some five years, since 4 July 2020, what is the Minister’s definition of a trial? Or is this in reality the legalisation of e-scooters by the back door?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is certainly not legalisation by the back door. As noble Lords will know, there are many of these things on the streets and, sadly, on the pavements of towns and cities, where they should not be, but to frame the appropriate legislation—bearing in mind, as the noble Baroness knows, that there is considerable variation in regulation across other countries—it is right to understand how they are currently used and how best we can regulate them. There is no intention to let this drift, because it is an important matter, and many people, including vulnerable and disabled people, are badly affected by the way that these things are used—and not used, being left on pavements to be tripped over and cause injury.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there may be no question of letting it drift, but the Government are letting it drift until May 2026, with the prospect of legislation no doubt in the second half of 2026 or early 2027—who knows, we might be into a general election before we get to anything. This is all a distraction from the real experience of e-scooters, because the trials that will be examined are highly artificial constructs where particular areas and locations are designated for legal use of specific hired scooters, which are usually clunky and highly coloured. Examining the evidence from the trials will tell one almost nothing about the real experience of the use of e-scooters by private individuals. Is it not time that the Government simply got on and legislated for both standards of behaviour and technical standards, such as on batteries?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Gosh—I do not much care to be lectured about drift by somebody who represents a party that did an experiment in 2021, published some results in 2022 and then did nothing. In any event, these things are becoming part of life, whether we like it or not and whether they are brightly coloured or not. The point at issue is to discover how they are used—rental trials in various towns and cities are as good a way of finding out as any—and then to work out what the legislation should say. It is a challenge for anybody, including the noble Lord opposite, to work out what the right standards are from the variety of regimes in the 21 European countries. We shall work that out carefully.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, earlier this year from the Dispatch Box, the Minister, with his customary good grace, committed to
“consultation with all the enforcement authorities”
before any changes in the law on e-scooters. He also gave an assurance that any new law
“is framed in a way that can be enforced both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere”.—[Official Report, 7/1/25; col. 612.]
To that end, has any representative of His Majesty’s Government been in recent contact with the PSNI to inquire about the ongoing experience of e-scooters in Northern Ireland, where they remain banned on public roads?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If the noble Lord is accurate, I must have been correct in what he reports I said, so I am sure that I did. I cannot immediately answer him on whether and to what extent there has been consultation in Northern Ireland, but I take his point. I will take it away and write to him about it.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, they glide among us on illegal, uninsurable vehicles, delivering our groceries and our takeaways. What are the Government going to do to help the workforce who use these types of vehicles and go after the faceless bosses who employ them, rather than the low-paid workers themselves?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really good point. That is one of the subjects which the Employment Rights Bill seeks to remedy. I do not think that we cannot do it directly through road traffic regulation, although when there are rules for these things, it will be incumbent on the employers of the people who ride them to comply with the rules as well as the people who ride them.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister raised the issue of poor parking of hire e-scooters and e-bikes. At Aldwych Kingsway, it is now almost impossible to get access to the bus stop, not just if you are in a wheelchair or with a guide dog but for a passenger as well, because there are sometimes as many as 100 of those vehicles parked around them. What powers do the police have to corral—perhaps that is the wrong word—these bikes and scooters and make sure that access to buses continues?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. I strongly sympathise, as she knows, with the difficulties that people with any sort of disability have boarding and alighting buses and using pavements. The intention is that local authorities correctly control hire schemes so that the people who run them are obliged to make sure that the bicycles or scooters they hire are properly parked, collected and moved on.
RHS Garden Wisley: Roadworks
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of disruption to the operation of the Royal Horticultural Society Garden Wisley and its environmental and research centre because of the roadworks around Junction 10 of the M25.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, draw attention to my non-financial interest as a vice-president of the Royal Horticultural Society, RHS.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the impact of the M25 junction 10 scheme on RHS Garden Wisley was considered from the project’s early stages in 2016. National Highways incorporated mitigation measures where possible and has considered major planned events at Wisley in its plans. Major weekend closures were scheduled to avoid conflicts with key events and extensive signage was installed to guide visitors through the works along the most direct and convenient routes.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The RHS Garden Wisley is a centre of excellence for horticultural science. It provides a green lifeline to over 30,000 schools, 5,500 community groups and 25 NHS trusts. This work relies on visitor income, but the ongoing M25 A3 roadworks have caused visitor numbers to fall dramatically by 25%. So I ask the Minister: what commitments can the Government give to ensure the RHS can continue its vital work by supporting the ability of environmental charities such as the RHS to deliver public benefit? Will the Minister agree to meet me and the RHS to discuss the long-term impact of the roadworks and ensure that this charity can continue to thrive?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
To answer the last part of the question first, I would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness. It would be a pleasure to talk to her and the Government. I talked this morning to my noble friend Lady Hayman about the RHS and the importance of the work that it does and we recognise the important part the garden plays. So I would be pleased to meet her.
The Government are not able to use taxpayers’ money for direct compensation, but there are two further issues. One is that there is some land-take, which RHS Wisley has a claim for and could—and should—pursue. The other is that there may be other ways of helping the gardens recover from this event. Of course, the benefit of the highway scheme will be to make access permanently better, because the old junction was congested for years. I would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, with National Highways and the contractors, to see what else we can do that is legitimate and will help the gardens in their very brilliant work.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, as one who opposed the original plans before they were ever put into practice, I feel very angry that the views of the RHS and of any of us who felt the same were not taken into account. As a result, the RHS has lost no less than £6 million because of visitor decline and, by the time these roadworks are finished, it will be £11 million. Will the Minister elaborate on what possible measures might be taken to recompense the RHS, including perhaps in the longer term having a better compensation scheme for National Highways, which has a scheme that is ill-suited to a charity such as the RHS?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The questions about compensation schemes are obviously about the wisdom and appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. I cannot answer for the design of the original scheme, because it is nearly 10 years old. But, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I am very happy to sit down with the RHS, National Highways and the contractors to see what else we can do, in particular as regards a better future for visitors, more visibility of the gardens and more signage and so forth, when the works are completed.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, all these issues are about the past. Can the Minister remind us who was in charge in the past? It seems that Ministers made no decisions on all these matters and it sounds as though they were getting their money under false pretences.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That is an easy answer, is it not? It was the previous Government, not this one.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, although I acknowledge the initial response, does the Minister agree that the existing methods used by National Highways to assess the impact that roadworks have on charities such as the RHS are in need of a review, and will he request such a review?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not sure whether the procedures are appropriate, but I will go away and get the department to look at them in order to see whether they are appropriate.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the RHS is clearly very well represented in this place, and rightly so, but perhaps I might put in a good word for rural communities, and businesses in rural communities where you have road and lane closures. The public and business see these roads that are closed, but there is no indication of when they will reopen and, although the roads are closed, there is no work or activity being done during the road closure. So I have a suggestion. When the local authority planning department or the highways department closes the road, it could put an indication of when the work will be completed and, if it cannot do that, it could give a telephone number that the public could phone to find out why not.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will not go down the cones hotline route—that did not seem to be a tremendous success. That point is well made. It is a continued frustration for drivers of all sorts that apparently unattended road works last for so long. The power to levy lane rental was started in London and it is rolling out. That is a way in which local authorities can put pressure because, frankly, they are not usually highway works but utility works, and the number of utility works that are left open for a long time is legion. So there is a point there and lane rental is one of the solutions to it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I live down the A3, so I use junction 10 quite frequently. Can the Minister confirm that we have seen the last full weekend closure of that junction?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
This is a new version of doing travel information in the House. I believe that there is a closure in April. The noble Lord probably knows where Painshill is better than I do. Then there are planned to be four more, one on the M25 and three on the A3, and that will be it, so far as I understand.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I understand—perhaps the noble Lord could confirm this—that the works are due to continue until the middle of 2026. Is that the case? Returning to the Royal Horticultural Society, what assessment has his department made of the effect on the long-term sustainability of the gardens after such damage to their visitor numbers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The works on the M25 will continue until this autumn. I believe the works on the A3 will continue into 2026, and they have been delayed by bad weather. I am sure that, if the noble Lord asks hard enough, he will discover whether his colleagues in the previous Government did that assessment about the RHS. We inherited this scheme. The best thing that we can do is to finish it. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I will meet her and the RHS with the contractors and National Highways to see what else we can do for the future of what is a much-prized and very valuable institution—which I go to quite often, despite the roadworks.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Highways Agency, as the client, has a major responsibility for ensuring that roadworks are undertaken as quickly as possible? The massive level of disruption on our national highway network affects individual drivers, but also commerce travelling around the country. What is it going to do about improving the performance of the contractors and ensuring much shorter times of works on these roads?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right that it is very important to do them quickly. In recent years, the safety of highway maintenance workers has been much considered, because it has hitherto been a very dangerous occupation. Therefore, some of the works last longer because they are better protected for safety. I cannot believe that this House would not sympathise with that aim, but I agree with my noble friend that it is incumbent on National Highways, which manages the works, to deliver them as quickly as possible.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talked about lane rental being rolled out. It has been being rolled out for the last 20 years, has it not? When will it actually going to operate?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will be very happy to write to the noble Baroness and tell her exactly what the position with lane rental is. It is complex and needs administration, but the intention is to force particular utilities to do their work in an effective and timely way.
Knife Crime: Stop and Search
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of stop and search in tackling knife crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Stop and search is a fundamental tool for tackling knife crime, but it must be used fairly and effectively. Getting that balance right as part of a basket of measures is critical to this Government’s objective of halving knife crime in 10 years and restoring public trust in the police.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, today the Metropolitan Police has published its stop and search charter, which refers in particular to tensions between the black community and the police. Would the Minister consider urging that the police be equipped with hand-held metal detectors as an efficient and more sensitive method of conducting stop and search?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point. The Home Office is working with industry partners, as it has been for a while, to develop the technology to detect from a distance knives concealed on the person. There are trials in place, and phase 1 is expected to be delivered by the end of May this year, resulting in a prototype system that could be used to do exactly what my noble friend says. Chief constables will have to decide on the use of that downstream, but I hope that will be of help to my noble friend. As part of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Police Race Action Plan, it is looking again at the very point he mentioned—the disproportionate stopping of people from black and minority ethnic communities.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that the most serious application of disproportionality is the number of young black men, in particular, who are murdered, what work are the Government doing to ensure that police officers have the confidence to carry out appropriate stop and search?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Stop and search remains a valuable tool. Last year, 14% of stop and searches resulted in an arrest and some 16,000 knives and firearms were found as a result of stop and search, so it is important. However, it is also important that it be done proportionally and that it has the confidence of the whole community. The Police Race Action Plan is looking at committing chief constables to identifying and addressing the disproportionality issues and why they are happening, and at giving proper training and support to police forces to ensure that they deal with stop and search in an effective and proportionate way.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, what the three universities are doing on new technology to help the police so that they do not have to stop and search sounds very interesting and worthwhile, and the results are excellent—at the moment. It is very welcome because it will, we hope, eventually eliminate the need for stop and search, as weapons hidden under clothing will be visible and the police will not have to do anything. However, will police forces be given the additional funding they will need to update and maintain the system and, crucially, to purchase new mobile phones with very good cameras? The Minister will know that this is one of the three key elements of the scheme. They can then get rid of the antiquated mobile phones that most of them are still using.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that this year’s police settlement, which was announced in February, finally, has given an extra £1 billion to police forces.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness says that it is not enough. I recall being Police Minister and the noble Baroness’s party cutting police resources after I left office. It may not be enough, but it is an extra £1 billion going into policing this year. We are trying to give flexibility. She is right about efficiencies and modernising which is why, again, we are ensuring that, as central government, we organise better purchasing and efficiencies and make better use of resources accordingly.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
Can the Minister outline whether more activity is possible on prevention and a public health approach to knife crime, as has been attempted in Glasgow? Examples include schools programmes and after-school youth provision—programmes that tackle the multivalent factors that can lead to violence.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. The Government committed in their manifesto to the creation of a young futures programme to provide safe space and support to people who are vulnerable to knife crime, and that includes a range of measures. When people are at accident and emergency, at youth clubs or in school and are seen to be vulnerable, they can be referred to the youth futures programme and youth futures hubs, which will support those individuals to turn away from knife crime and have the life skills to improve their condition.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
Online retailers and re-sellers are getting around the law to supply these weapons to young people. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to prevent the supply of weapons, which has to happen if we are to stop knife crime at source?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House of Commons but will be reaching this House very shortly, there are strong measures to restrict the sale of knives online and to provide particularly strong penalties for the illegal sale of knives, including a new online police co-ordination hub to take action against illegal knife and weapon content. My noble friend will know that on 27 March, the Government announced a ban on ninja swords. I will be bringing before this House, in short order, a Commons statutory instrument to ensure that we have a surrender scheme, and then, if approved by this House, a complete ban on ninja swords from 1 August 2025.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register—my current interests, anyway. Has the Minister asked the Metropolitan Police why its new stop and search charter does nothing to address the disproportionate number of black people being stopped and searched, and if not, will he?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. In preparing for this Question, I asked about the disproportionality rates. I fully expected the Metropolitan Police and others to have the highest disproportionality rates, but, interestingly, some of the UK’s rural forces have the highest rates. It is really important that we look at the figures, which show that a particular force, which I will not name, has a disproportionality rate of 9.4, compared with the Met’s 3.1 figure. It is a really interesting table of statistics. Having asked for that information, I want to drill down with my colleague, the Police Minister, into which forces are underperforming in having a higher disproportionality rate, and look at how we can provide support and take action to understand why that is happening and what we can do to rectify it.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, next, and then my noble friend Lord McConnell.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, are the Government in discussion with the police about the use of Section 60 powers—which, I should say, were extended under a previous Government? The HMIC’s last report on stop and search, in 2021, found that of all the Section 60 searches done in the previous year, only 3.7% found a weapon. Do such low find rates justify the damage that Section 60 searches cause to community relations?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that very interesting point. There were 5,145 stop and searches under suspicionless Section 60 powers last year, which fell between the jurisdiction of both Governments. That was a 20% increase on the previous year but represents just 3% of the 150,000 stop and searches that have been conducted. It is a very valid point and one that I will take away and look at in detail.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Glasgow’s Violence Reduction Unit, established by our Justice Minister in Scotland, Cathy Jamieson, in 2005, had a combination of tougher action by the police and the courts, alongside the action referred to earlier on education and health and other areas? It has had remarkable success, so can lessons from that be learned elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Is my noble friend willing to come to Glasgow to meet those who still work in that unit to learn from some of those lessons?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to take up my noble friend’s suggestion, when time allows. As he knows, that mixture of education, youth hubs, wider support for parents and an understanding of the reasons why people are involved in knife culture is really important. Equally, this Government are focused on online sales and how we can take action to give the police better support, including the use of the new technology I mentioned earlier. A whole raft of measures is contributing to the Government’s commitment to halve knife crime over a distinct period. That is a really important point, and I will certainly look at lessons elsewhere to help inform the Government.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Stop and search is a vital tool for stopping those intent on causing death, injury and fear in our communities, and I can personally vouch for that. Policing response, and the successful detection of crime, is of course based on responding to local intelligence and victim statements. However, as we know, evidence suggests that the use of stop and search can negatively affect the relationship between police and ethnic minority communities, which is of course damaging. Can the Minister outline how the Government are working with the police—I am particularly thinking of training issues—and communities to strengthen trust and make sure that stop and search does not come at the cost of community confidence?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition’s spokesperson. It is important that stop and search, as with policing generally, has the confidence of the communities being policed. The Government have made a commitment to increase the number of neighbourhood police officers and to make them front line, and to have that front-facing community engagement through neighbourhood policing over the next few years. There will be an additional 11,000 to 12,000—possibly even 13,000—neighbourhood police officers by the end of this Parliament, which is a key commitment to ensure that we have community engagement at a local level.
Universities: Free Speech
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to universities following the fine imposed by the Office for Students on Sussex University for breach of free speech obligations.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the regulatory case report to which the noble Baroness referred underlines the importance of good governance and academic freedom in higher education. The Office for Students will shortly be writing to relevant providers on this important issue and offering support and advice. It will be publishing updated guidance for the higher education sector to support it to understand how to comply with its duties in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the robust backing that the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has given to the Office for Students’ insistence, via a hefty fine, on respect for free speech at Sussex University—including for academics such as Kathleen Stock, whose expression of a revolutionary belief about the reality of biological sex got them hounded and abused. I note, though, that Sussex University is indicating defiance of the OfS ruling. Will Education Ministers, not just the OfS, ensure that universities are persuaded not only of their intellectual duty to respect free debate but of their obligation not to waste taxpayers’ money, especially when they are complaining about a shortage of funds?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that we have robustly defended academic freedom. We believe that universities are places where academics need to be able to express and research contested ideas, where individuals need to be able to express lawful speech, and where that freedom of speech needs to be respected. We will continue to ensure that that is the case. Universities are autonomous organisations, but I am sure that they will have heard the point made by the noble Baroness about spending their money.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lady Levitt next and then from the noble Lord, Lord Young, after that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a parent of a trans child. Does the Minister agree that, in the exercise of everybody’s inalienable right to lawful free speech, it is in the interests of all concerned that publicly stated views about these matters are given in a measured way that enables mature and informed discussion about a challenging issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is exactly right: it is wholly possible to carry out the sort of important research that the noble Baroness referenced, including in the area of gender-critical research, and to treat trans people with the respect that they deserve and ensure that they are able to play their full role in our society.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in the light of the Office for Students’ finding that Sussex University’s trans and non-binary equality policy is incompatible with the registration conditions imposed by the Office for Students on all English universities, which require them to uphold free speech and academic freedom, would the Minister advise all universities to review their EDI policies to ensure that they do not chill lawful speech and are not incompatible with their regulatory compliance requirements?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that part of the ruling was about the specifics of the University of Sussex’s trans and non-binary policy and its failure to recognise the requirements on the university to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom. I hope that all universities will look carefully at this ruling and will note its second element, which was around the governance to consider issues such as this. All universities need to be clear that these important decisions, and sometimes these challenging conflicts, need to be considered at the highest possible level and with the strongest possible governance.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will take the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, to share with her a letter that was sent on 20 March by 10 of us, including Professor Steve Tsang, Charles Parton and Professor Michelle Shipworth—who was banned from teaching a course at University College London, after complaints from students from the People’s Republic of China that she had shown slides detailing slave labour in Xinjiang? Has the university sector become too reliant on funds from the PRC? Will the Minister read the warnings in the 2023 Intelligence and Security Committee report and agree to meet with the signatories of that letter?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have met with some of the signatories of that letter. The measures we are implementing as part of the wider freedom of speech Act will further strengthen protections from overseas interference in academic freedom, with the new complaints scheme offering focused routes for concerns to be raised. The Government expect universities to be alert to a range of risks when collaborating with international partners, for example, and to conduct appropriate due diligence to comply with legislation and regulatory requirements, including potential threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom. We will keep all our protections under review, including confirming final decisions on the provisions relating to the overseas funding measures in the freedom of speech Act. It is enormously important that that type of academic freedom and research is facilitated and promoted in our world-class universities.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will have my noble friend Lady Royall next, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my entry in the register. Will my noble friend the Minister join me in celebrating the fact that the vast majority of academic scholars and students recognise that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our universities? I do not expect my noble friend to comment, but I reflect on conversations I had last week with academics in Texas, Washington and New York. They do not have freedom of speech; they live in fear.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The reason we have a world-leading higher education sector in this country is the excellence of the academic research and teaching that is carried out in the sector. It is important that we do everything that we can to safeguard that, for the good of our academics, individual students and our country as a whole.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Office for Students has acted in a quasi- judicial capacity in this case and yet is also expected to work with universities to find evolving solutions to increasingly complex cases? Could the Minister advise how the Office for Students might balance its enforcement responsibilities with its advisory role to support the sector to navigate these and other issues?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The relationship between the functions that the noble Baroness outlines is not necessarily unusual for regulatory bodies. I am sure that the Office for Students in particular thinks carefully about it. Obviously, there has been a lot of thought on the role of the Office for Students with respect to freedom of speech, and I am sure that it is continuing to consider that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government have rightly acknowledged the importance of increased defence spending. Given media reports of intimidation towards defence industries and the Armed Forces at higher education recruitment events, we must ask the Minister this: what steps are the Government taking to ensure that such events take place without issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is wholly wrong if those events are not able to take place on our campuses or if there is interference in the very important research that our universities are taking part in. That is primarily the responsibility of the higher education institutions themselves, but I am absolutely clear that that is an important part of what should be happening in our universities.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to say that there are two sides to this freedom of speech debate. In many universities, if not most, Jewish students have been howled down, barricaded and assaulted, whereas on the other side, hate speech has been directed at them. Does the Minister agree with me that a clear line needs to be drawn between freedom of speech and hate speech, and that, while we concentrate on transgender and other issues, Jewish students are being overlooked and not protected?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I was able to discuss that directly with Jewish students at a Friday evening dinner event hosted by the University of Birmingham’s Jewish Society, which I attended here at the House of Lords. It is not wholly right for the noble Baroness to suggest that the Government are taking no action. We are making £7 million available to the education system as a whole to tackle antisemitism. We have been clear, in the careful approach that we have taken to implementing freedom of speech provisions, that we need to protect students from some of the issues she outlined. We will continue to be clear that universities need to be places where all students can carry out their studies, confident of both the protection of their freedom of speech and of their ability to be there in the first place and to succeed.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B to F. Motions A to D and Motion F ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B and 15B to 15E. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.
Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare and anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. As set out in this House previously, these amendments are unnecessary as the powers they seek to create already exist in the Bill.
The measures set out in Clauses 1 to 4 deliver on the Government’s commitment as set out at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, they represent the first step of this Government’s work to transform the business rates system. It is essential that the Government are able to progress this work by taking this first step.
Further reforms will come, as the Government have made clear, and further information on this will be set out in the coming months. We want to start our journey with the Bill. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments.
Amendments 15B to 15E would move the decision to remove charitable rate relief from private schools from one being made by Parliament in the Bill to one that would be made by the Secretary of State through regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. I have already stated the Government’s view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through the Bill. For these reasons I ask that noble Lords do not insist on these amendments.
Motion E asks the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, not to insist on his Amendment 13B. The other place disagreed to this amendment on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary. The first part of Amendment 13B is concerned with a review that would consider the impacts of Clauses 1 to 4 on properties with a rateable value close to £500,000. I understand that this is seeking to further understand the way that the multipliers in business rates operate and whether the thresholds within the system serve as a disincentive to invest. As previously set out in this House, the Government have already committed to looking at this question through the broader transforming business rates work, and therefore to stipulate this in legislation is not necessary.
The second part of Amendment 13B seeks a review of the merits of a new use class within business rates and an associated multiplier for online fulfilment warehouses. As I have set out previously, this question has arisen over recent years and is something in which the Government have an interest. First, I should be clear to the House that the Government’s intention at this time is to have only one higher multiplier and for that to be applied to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment is more concerned with the ability to target online-focused warehouses. I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Bill already provides the Government with the ability to introduce additional higher multipliers in future if required.
The noble Lord’s amendment explored how these online warehouses can be identified in business rates. We have looked at this again, and I remain sure that the best place to tackle this is through the digitalising business rates project. This project links together HMRC and VOA data from which we expect to be able to identify online businesses operating distribution warehouses separately from businesses that operate on the high street. I hope I can give the noble Lord some further reassurance on what we have found. The project will create opportunities to better target business rates policy in future by having access to more comprehensive data. Using this data, the Government could target particular types of businesses within the warehousing sector. I believe this is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. Such an approach will do that systematically, using the latest data and technology, and give us the best prospect of a solution that can be fully integrated into the business rates system.
We are confident that this approach is preferable to one that looks to categorise how individual warehouses are being used on the ground, especially given that one warehouse used by one type of business may in practice be used in much the same way as another used by another type of business. Attempting to categorise warehouses by how they are used as opposed to who they are used by, without more accurate data on the businesses using them, risks capturing warehouses used by businesses that we are seeking to protect, creating a far higher burden on high street retailers. I am aware that the noble Lord feels that this is valuable, and I recognise that. I hope he can understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, we are prepared to keep engaging with him on this matter, be that directly with him or with the three professional bodies he mentions in his amendment. On this basis, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Bill not only fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto but is far from the reform of the business rates system that was promised and will be a damaging blow to our high streets. We have debated the numerous issues present in the Bill a number of times, and I remain exceptionally concerned about the higher multiplier that will undoubtedly hit anchor stores in town centres; the impact of the blunt £500,000 threshold on businesses with values close to that margin, which will affect their decisions about investment; and the Government’s decision to place a tax on education. We have urged them time and again to rethink, but they remain unmoved by our arguments and, more importantly, by the views of people and businesses across the country. I hope that anchor stores will not leave the high street and that this will not result in the destruction of our town centres, but the Government are making it more difficult for those businesses with this blunt tool, which will hit larger stores with higher business taxes.
The Government have rejected even our amendments that would have allowed the Secretary of State to exempt certain businesses if this proved to be damaging, but they are so confident in this increase to business rates that they do not need that power to reverse these decisions. Only time will tell whether that confidence was misguided.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, last week there was a considerable majority of support in this House for an amendment tabled in my name, which enabled the Government, by regulation, to prevent the higher multiplier from being applied to NHS properties, mainly consisting of 290 of the major hospitals in England. I was surprised to hear the Minister say just now that there is sufficient leverage within the Bill to enable those changes to be made. I ask him now to write to me to explain how that will work.
It is most disappointing that the Government felt unable to accept the amendment. However, it is clear that the Government have very challenging decisions to make. Nevertheless, given that reducing waiting times is a key priority, we on these Benches were hoping for—and indeed hopeful of—government support on this issue. We recognise at this stage that we can take the Bill no further and we will not press any further amendments.
Finally, I want to give thanks to all those who have taken part in this interesting Bill, which attracts those of us who like to understand how business rates work, who benefits and who does not. We look forward to the digitalisation of the whole process, whereby changes could then be made. From these Benches, we thank all who have taken part, including the Whips’ Office, which has given me enormous support, as well as the Minister and his team for all the helpful conversations that we have had. They did not get anywhere but, nevertheless, I thank the Minister for always being willing to meet.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, it has been an interesting and lively debate through all its stages, covering the many aspects of the broad landscape of this Bill. I thank all who took part and supported my amendments from across the House right through to this final stage. I add my thanks to the Minister and his team, who have spent a good deal of time on a number of occasions, willing to engage with me to try to find compromise and a way through the complicated and difficult elements of the Bill, which have become quite technical and needed a deep dive.
I feel a sense of real regret. The Government have missed a real opportunity to deal once and for all with the injustices heaped on the small high-street retailers, which continue to subsidise the rates paid by these mammoth non-high-street retail fulfilment centres: the internet operators exclusively—not the ones on the high street that have fulfilment centres but the ones that are not on the high street. It is tragic that this opportunity has been missed. It is a wrong that the Bill could have put right. The Minister’s proposals address aspects of this, but possibly not for many years to come. The digitisation process of non-domestic rates, which we have discussed, is in hand and planned for 2028, but I wonder whether, like many other government initiatives, it will take many years longer than expected. What a waste. It was not too difficult—an opportunity missed.
It is not my desire to prolong the debate, notwithstanding the reasons cited for refusal in the other place, which left the door open. I think we have done enough, and HMG should not be frustrated in their manifesto items. I thank the Minister for his opportunity to continue a dialogue going forward, which I would like to engage in if I have not been put in front of the firing squad as a hereditary before that time comes. I will not press my amendment.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words about independent schools. Throughout, the Government’s position has been in essence that we have to take away—they say—some of the resources of 7% of our country’s schools to enable 93% to make improvements. State schools will gain little or nothing from Labour’s tax raid, which will simply harm independent schools. Throughout our debates, I have tried to provide a voice for small independent schools, as president of the Independent Schools Association, whose 720 members are, for the most part, cherished small local schools. As I have said several times, 40% of independent schools have under 100 pupils. Their future is now in jeopardy, thanks to this Government. Ministers will be held to account here in Parliament and in the country at large for the damage their policies will do to these schools, which contribute so richly to our communities in spheres such as special needs, music, the arts and sport, as I and a number of noble friends have shown in these debates. Labour’s discriminatory tax burdens threaten their very survival.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, as well as all those who have dedicated their time and efforts to scrutinising this Bill. I am especially thankful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott of Bybrook, the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Jamieson, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan, Lord Lexden, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The time and consideration noble Lords have given to this Bill are greatly appreciated and, while I acknowledge that it is not always possible to see eye to eye, I hope they understand the appreciation I have for their efforts and expertise. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their agreement not to insist on these amendments.
Through the Bill, we are beginning to deliver on our ambition to transform the business rates system. In taking our first vital step on that path, we are ensuring a sustainable, funded, permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties that will be provided from April 2026. Furthermore, the Government are delivering on their commitment to break down barriers to opportunity by removing the business rates charitable relief from private schools, to help raise vital revenue to support the delivery of the Government’s commitments to education and young people. I am aware that the noble Baroness does not agree with the Government on this matter, but I hope she understands our position, and that it is vital that we take the tough but necessary decisions to ensure that the same opportunities are afforded to all children, regardless of where they come from or their financial background.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, invited me to write a letter on a question. I am going to reject that invitation because I have the answer for her now. She asked specifically about the powers to exclude classes of properties from the higher multiplier if we wanted to in future. We have the powers in Clause 3. Specifically, the powers referred to in that clause allow us to exclude classes of hereditaments from the higher multiplier.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his remarks. I am aware that he is concerned about the timetable for the digitalising business rates project. The solution to that problem lies in the linking of business and property data, and in the project itself. I look forward to engaging with the noble Lord, along with officials. Once again, I thank him and all noble Lords for not insisting on their amendments.
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7C.
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8C.
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13C.
Lord Khan of Burnley
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15F.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Mobarik
“Life peerages to be nominated by party groupsOn the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that—(a) 46 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords,(b) 33 individuals nominated by the House of Lords Appointment Commission to sit on the crossbenches,(c) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Labour Party in the House of Lords, and(d) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in the House of Lordsbe granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Prime Minister to give groups in Parliament the ability to nominate individuals to be appointed as life peers to replace the number of hereditary peers in their group. This could include reappointing some hereditary peers as life peers.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their support.
My amendment proposes the nomination of life peerages equivalent to the number of hereditary Peers, split proportionally between the parties and groups affected. I shall speak to the detail of it shortly. I came to this conclusion after a number of conversations and considerable thought on how to resolve this matter in a way that reflects the disposition of our House: of respect, courtesy and consideration towards our colleagues —something that one should expect in any place of work.
When I spoke at Second Reading, I expressed the view that current hereditary Peers should be awarded life peerages if this Bill removes their ability to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. It was a wish to protect valued and respected colleagues from eviction from this House, prompted, as I said then, by a feeling that there may be an element of discrimination or prejudice at play. I hope, having been sensitive to such things from a young age and from experience, that I will always stand up to prejudice no matter from where it comes or to whom it is directed. It is simply a principle that I wish to uphold.
Having listened carefully to the debates on this Bill over these last weeks, I am still trying to understand why it is being brought forward by the Government when there are so many other more pressing issues for them to address. Nevertheless, if noble Lords will indulge me with their attention for a little longer, I will share some more background to this amendment.
I came to this House just over a decade ago and was introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a pre-eminent hereditary Peer and former Leader of this House. I knew my noble friend from serving on the Strathclyde commission, which he so ably chaired, and was hugely honoured that he agreed to be one of my supporters.
During my first few weeks here, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, another hereditary Peer, became my mentor. I do not think there could have been anyone kinder and more conscientious. He did everything he could to ensure that I understood the workings of your Lordships’ House. Several months on, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, then Chief Whip, asked whether I would consider being a party Whip. I said yes. My group, or flock as we called them, had something in common—they were all Scots, and a fair number of them were hereditary Peers.
If anyone is concerned about representation of the regions, Scotland is very well represented by our hereditaries. I will mention just a few of those in my old flock. My noble friend Lord Lindsay currently serves on our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and has been president of the National Trust of Scotland and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My noble friend Lord Caithness, the chief of Clan Sinclair, currently serves on our procedure committee and the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. He has also been a Minister of State in no less than five government departments: the Department for Transport, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Foreign Office. My noble friend Lord Dundee is the royal standard-bearer for Scotland. He is a farmer who runs two charitable trusts that he founded, and he has served for many years on the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He has also been a Government Whip and government spokesman for education, Scottish affairs, home affairs and energy. All of them made me feel so welcome and showed me the utmost respect and kindness. I could not have asked for better colleagues looking out for me when I joined this House.
What I am trying to say is that the people affected by this Bill are our friends. Not only that: they are distinguished parliamentarians who contribute so much to this House to which we all belong.
A more recent colleague and friend of mine in this House is my noble friend Lord Minto. He has served as a Minister of State in the Department for Business and Trade and as Minister of State for Defence—both unpaid positions, might I add—and we have regular catch-ups over tea. On our very first meeting, my noble friend and I discovered some common threads: the family of a very close friend of my late father, an eminent gentlemen by the name of Shaharyar Khan, a former ambassador of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, had a strong connection to my noble friend’s grandfather. Historical photographs and information were shared, but that is where the cozy backstory ends.
My noble friend’s grandfather was the viceroy of pre-partition India. I have rather a dim view of empire, as noble Lords would expect, but I do not choose to see my noble friend through the lens of history. When we enter this place, those strange concepts of class and privilege are left outside. We are here as equals—as Peers. The clue is in the name but, to be clear, I do not argue for the hereditary principle. It belongs in the century before last. The point is that if we do not believe that someone should become a Member of this House because of who their parents were, surely it is not right to remove people from this House because of who their parents were. With that in mind, I come to my amendment.
I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—the Leader of our whole House—knows that I hold her and her Front-Bench team in the highest esteem. She has told us that this Bill is not a cunning attempt at gerrymandering, and we should believe her. My amendment follows on from that understanding. If this Bill is not about gerrymandering then on the day that it passes into law, which it will, as it was a manifesto commitment, the Prime Minister should at that point recommend to His Majesty that life peerages be granted to replace the number of hereditary Peers who are to be lost.
It would be up to the leaders of the parties in the House of Lords or, in the case of the Cross-Bench Peers HOLAC, to replace the hereditary Peers they have lost with life Peers. There would be no back-room deals, a term used more than once during these debates; let us just be transparent. Here are the numbers lost and they should be replaced. If we feel that some, even most, of our hereditary Peers are worthy of being appointed as life Peers, then there really should be no objection; and where there are hereditaries who do not attend the House or who intend to retire, this will be a good opportunity to replace them with fresh talent. Some more women on these Benches would be a good idea.
In all cases, qualification for this House can and should be based on life experience, knowledge, commitment and a quality not often mentioned: wisdom. I really hope that we can overcome the prejudices that I fear I am detecting. We should judge each other on what we do and say, rather than on who we are and where we come from. We should respect the huge contributions that so many hereditary Peers have made over the years. We should allow for a smooth and fair transition to the next stage of our illustrious history, in readiness for the challenges and opportunities of a new and exciting age, by bringing with us the best of our talent and recruiting what more we need. I believe that my amendment addresses all these points, and I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, with regret, I oppose this amendment, despite the fact that I often agree with some of the views of some of its proposers. It seems to me to have at least three quite serious objections.
First, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the numbers in this Chamber—quite the reverse. Together with the numbers already appointed and those likely to be appointed, we will greatly increase the size of this House well beyond the 600 which has often been recommended as desirable.
Secondly and differently, it greatly enhances the influence of party leaders and I really do not want to do that. What if Mr Johnson was the leader of the Conservative Party now? I certainly would not want to give him these unlimited powers.
Lastly, and much the same, it does not address the concerns frequently expressed in this Committee as to the lack of any proper criteria to ensure that the individuals concerned are fit and proper persons or, for that matter, will participate fully in the business of this House. While I can understand the reasons that it is put forward, I think it is a thoroughly bad amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I profoundly disagree, almost for the first time, with the noble Viscount. I put my name to this amendment, and I want to say to the Committee that I am concerned, as he clearly is, about the size of the House. We are the second largest second Chamber, apart from China, and 237 Members of this House have attended less than 20% of the time they should, of which 127 have attended less than 10% of that time. We have leave of absence, and one Peer has had 8.5 years of leave of absence, while others have had several years but remain on the list of Peers who could attend at any time. We now have a system for Peers who do not do anything and do not attend: they could be asked to leave. So far, only 16 have been asked to leave, despite the numbers who really do not attend and do not contribute.
For comparison, we can look at the hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House. Out of the 88 hereditary Peers that we had until yesterday, two only have failed to do more than 20% of attending this House, which if I may say so compares rather well with the other Peers in this House who do not attend. I attend fairly regularly, as your Lordships will know, and I have noticed over the years that I have been here the enormous hard work of the majority of the hereditary Peers. Not only do they play their part by coming and contributing, but they contribute substantially; they play a valuable part in the work of this House. Among many hereditary Peers, two are more hard-working than many others among us.
If the successive efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to get rid of elections of hereditary Peers had been successful, there would be no question about the current hereditary Peers remaining. Unfortunately, it was not accepted, and it is disappointing that it was not accepted. I think that the last Government and the Conservative Benches were at fault in not recognising the writing on the wall, because we would not be here if the Grocott proposals had been allowed.
But in recognising the enormous contribution that those Peers make to this House, it would be very sad if this Government did not do what this amendment asks for. What saddens me even more is that this Government, by taking this particular Bill forward, without offering the opportunity to consider those Peers who do not attend and do not contribute, are allowing them to remain technically as Members of the House, and doing nothing about it. Getting rid of those who do the work and leaving in those who do not seems to me something that the Government should really reflect on, and I ask them to look seriously at this amendment.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, privilege and honour to follow the noble and learned Baroness, and I agree with everything that she has had to say in her remarks this afternoon. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for gathering together an eclectic bunch to support her in this amendment, which is very worth while considering by the whole House. I have been a non-affiliated Member of this House for just two years and four months, and I am very pleased to be associated with this amendment and be one of the names attached to it.
Since I have come into this House, I have noticed, like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that often the expertise, life experience—to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—and wisdom come from members of the hereditary peerage. If noble Lords want to ignore that fact, they should be up front as to why. There is a range of Peers from right across the political spectrum in this House; sometimes I still have a “pinch me” moment that I am sitting here listening to Peers giving of their wisdom and life experience. While that is true across the political spectrum of life Peers, it is also very true of hereditary Peers. I respect the work and commitment of the hereditary Peers in this place, who raise their voices on such a wide range of issues. I want to acknowledge that this afternoon.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, on the face of it, it is utterly illogical and ridiculous for me to have signed this amendment. I want to get rid of the hereditaries and the Bishops—no offence. I want to make this House at least half the size. I agree, a little, on all sorts of things with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but let us deal with size in a different place.
Leaders already have quite a lot of power. We have tested these people. That is the whole point. We know the records of the Lords we are getting rid of—we have seen them and heard them. To suggest that they might not be a fit is also illogical. Of course, they do not need the title. I am sure that a lot of us just love being Lords and Ladies, but they do not, because they have been Lords all their lives, so for them it is not a promotion.
This Bill has an element of prejudice—I do not like it. As a working-class person, I loathe privilege and this sort of nonsense, but, at the same time, I also resent separating people into groups where you pick on them —we had an Oral Question on this today. So I very much support this.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on putting together an eclectic mix of people to support her—all women. That is interesting, I am not sure she intended that. This has been a painful debate and this amendment would close it. It would be an elegant solution to what has been a terrible amount of drudgery for all of us.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken sparingly on this Bill, wishing to speak only if I had something useful to say—a self-discipline which I note has not been practised universally during the course of the Bill. To summarise my position, the principle of hereditary Peers is unsustainable in 2025; the Bill should not be opposed; but the Bill has consequences for the functionality of this House.
I provided evidence at Second Reading that a hard-working, regularly attending cohort of hereditary Peers was making a valued contribution to this House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, confirmed the point eloquently in her contribution. My solution was to convert some of them into life Peers.
If I understand the position of the Government correctly, the valued contribution being made to the House by this hard-working core of hereditaries is not disputed. Nor do the Government seem to refute, in principle, the idea of a conversion to life Peers—according to Labour Back-Benchers, you achieve that by putting the names on a party list and submitting that for approval, as is current practice.
So, if we have agreement on the two main consequences of the Bill, what is the best way of finding a solution when it is this Bill that is creating the consequences? The “prepare a party list for conversion to life Peers” approach has, to me, two obvious failings. It takes no account of the Cross-Benchers, who are very valuable Members of this House precisely because they have no party-political affiliation and have to sign a statement to that effect. They cannot organise a party list. Secondly, surely we owe it to the hard-working hereditaries who have been turning up and doing their share of the heavy lifting to recognise that contribution as a House and offer a House solution to what is a one-off event? This abolition will not recur.
The sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Mobarik provides just that. That her amendment has drawn support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, speaks volumes for the common-sense desire across the House to find that elegant solution.
I had hoped that by this point conversations would have been taking place through usual channels to progress this solution, but it seems that this process has become constipated. If my noble friend’s amendment, with the authoritative support it has garnered, administers the necessary dose of laxative, it has my unqualified support.
Even the dogs on the street know that we have to come up with a solution. I hope the Government will sense the momentum behind this amendment, will become positive in their reading of the mood of the Committee, and will be prepared to come forward with something constructive.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I find myself very much in sympathy with the intention of this amendment and particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said a few moments ago.
Our tradition in this House is evolution, not revolution. We know the outstanding contribution that many of the hereditaries have made to our work. My concern is that in the ongoing work that we do, the sheer thousands of amendments that have been passed because of the detailed work that this House has done—I do not have the figures at hand—sorting out some complex but sometimes misguided Bills that have come to us, have often relied on some of the most expert, established and experienced Members of this House.
This amendment would not undermine the fundamental principle of the Bill. I think everybody in the Committee accepts that it has come because it was part of the election manifesto, and we want to work with that. But this would enable us to draw on the huge expertise and ensure that we can focus our abilities to keep doing our fundamental work. It would be only a temporary phase, and eventually the Bill would achieve what it wants to do. Meanwhile, I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look closely at this to see whether we can find a way through that draws on the best experience we can of the Members of your Lordships’ House as we take our work forward.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much endorse what the right reverend Prelate said in his—to use a religious word—irenic speech, which I hope will help. I think we all want to address this subject without prejudice and, if we do, I think we will see how strong this amendment is.
By the way, one of the objections to the hereditary Peers remaining in this House is that they are all men, but I notice that four noble Baronesses have put their name to this amendment. If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of us.
In my career as an employer, I have sometimes had the misfortune to sack people, and to feel that I had to sack them. I am afraid that one sometimes gets into a situation when one is sacking people when, in order not to hurt their feelings, one keeps telling them how marvellous they are. Sometimes, reasonably enough, they ask, “Well, why are you sacking me, then?”, and it can be difficult to say. Usually, the reason is that actually you do not think they are very marvellous. This amendment teases out the real motive of the Government here. That is what we want to know. We are all agreed, and the Government themselves seem to be agreed, that the hereditary Peers are marvellous as individuals, which is all that is being proposed here—not the hereditary principle but the actual hereditary Peers. So what is it—why do they all have to go? If you press and press, the underlying thought that the Government cannot express is what people used to say in other prejudiced situations. They are saying, “We don’t like your sort”, and that is a bad way to make a law in this House.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before, but I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do so very briefly now. I do not support the actual wording of this amendment, but I so strongly support the underlying principle behind it, and most particularly what the right reverend Prelate said. Why are we still sitting here? Why are people not sitting down in a room, privately sorting this out?
This amendment would give the Whips the power to decide who they are to choose. It raises the question of the future administration of this House and the numbers after the hereditary Peers have gone, which they undoubtedly will under the Bill. Something far bigger has arisen from the way in which this Bill has been debated—when I have not been in the Chamber, I have been watching it on the screen—and a great many ideas, some of them new to me, have come up about what needs to be done. It is clear that it needs to be major. There needs to be major restructuring, because otherwise we are going to have the power to send people to this House concentrated in one pair of hands, and that cannot be right.
Those Peers currently in the House who wish to remain, who contribute regularly and who are able and willing to continue to do so should, in my view, be offered life peerages. I am told that the number would be nearer to 30 than 90, so we would reduce the size of the House to a degree by just that move. We all come to this House by myriad different routes; sometimes they are strange or unorthodox. We are proposing to remove just those who have come by heredity, and of course the Bill will go through. Very few people, other than Sir Michael Ellis in the other place, would argue that it is wrong to insist on a right to sit in this Parliament because of heredity.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too support this amendment, so eloquently presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik.
I find it a little disingenuous for the Government to claim that the Bill must go through as it honours a manifesto pledge. A manifesto pledge is not in itself a justification for policy, especially when it overturns the cross-party, solemn and binding 1999 agreement. Let us not forget that only 33% of the electorate voted for Labour. That is hardly a clear mandate for such a major change in our constitution. Expelling 88 hereditary Peers en bloc is neither fair nor necessary. It is crude and vindictive and, to me, reeks of aristophobia. Hereditary Peers are acknowledged by everybody, even Ministers, to be hard working, bringing expertise and commitment to public service. Many have served on the Front Bench without pay. They bring geographic, social and rural representation, qualities increasingly rare in our public institutions. They have proven their worth through quiet, consistent commitment to this House.
Is this really how we would like to treat those who have given so much to this institution? What about the younger Peers who entered this House in good faith, expecting to serve with honour and dedication, but who are now being told to leave immediately, with no plan, no time to prepare and no opportunity to build a new career? Where is the justice in that?
If the Government’s real aim is to reduce the size of the House, why have they abandoned the other part of that same manifesto pledge: to introduce a retirement age of 80? That alone would reduce the number of hereditary Peers by 13 through natural attrition, without a mass expulsion, and bring the number of Peers down to 457.
By contrast, removing hereditary Peers would leave us with 748 Members. Let us be honest: this Bill is not about reducing numbers or making the House more effective. This is not reform; it is politics dressed up as reform. True reform is committed, consistent and considered. It does not single out one group for discrimination. The Government argue that hereditary Peers should have accepted a previous deal, but fairness does not expire. If the Grocott solution was fair then, it should still be fair now. Let hereditary Peers retire with dignity. Some are willing to do so, but those who wish to continue serving should be allowed to remain, through a phased transition and by granting them life peerages. That would show fairness, principle and compassion.
This amendment does not stand in the way of reform or seek to preserve the hereditary route into this House. It simply asks that reform be carried out with decency and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, pointed out, with discrimination. After all, wherever we come from, we are all accidents of birth. This amendment offers a solution and a path forward that ensures that we are all treated equally as Peers. I hope that this Government will consider it, as it would be a good solution.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, a great and very wise public servant once said that the House of Lords is a disgrace and the enemy of good government. He explained why: it is filled, he said, with people who know what they are talking about. That great servant of the state was, of course, Sir Humphrey.
Our hereditaries have not scratched and scrabbled their way into this House simply for a title. They have already got one—in some cases, several. I doubt that most of them have come here for the occasional 300 quid. By and large, like the rest of us, they have come here to do what they see as their public duty, because they have something to offer—something unique and special. In the words of Sir Humphrey, they do know what they are talking about. I hope that Sir Keir will listen to Sir Humphrey. Sir Keir wants to get his legislation through, and he must, but there is no need to rip this place apart to do so.
My noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment is one of many that have been put forward that could bring about a happy solution—the indisputable rights of the Labour Government in harmony with the indubitable duties of this House of Lords. Our hereditary system is coming to an end. That is not in doubt. But our individual hereditary colleagues—our noble friends the Howes, the Kinnoulls, the Strathclydes, the Stansgates and the Addingtons—are not the enemy. They have been, and they are, exceptional public servants.
A very clear mood has emerged around this House this afternoon in almost every speech. I hope that we and the Government will take that into account. There will come a day when we all will have to leave this place. May we go with grace and may we go with the gratitude of our colleagues ringing in our ears. Hereditary Peers deserve no less.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 90E in the names of my noble friend Lady Mobarik and her eclectic range of cross-party sponsors. I congratulate her on the eloquent and powerful conviction with which she moved her amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her principled and courageous cross-party stance.
As a disabled person, I am quite used to people feeling sorry for me. Today, the people I feel sorry for are the Government, because of the unenviable quandary they find themselves in. There they are with an overwhelming majority in the other place—yet the effect of this Bill will be to undermine your Lordships’ House as the only remaining check within Parliament on their untrammelled power.
That is why I welcome this amendment: because it would help the Government out of their quandary by giving them, and indeed us all, the opportunity to consider the question of our hereditary colleagues from a different, non-discriminatory perspective, one that draws on what unites us and makes us strong as a House of disparate lived experiences, social backgrounds and beliefs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, reminded us. I hope today’s debate will help us all view the question under consideration through the prism of the one theme that I feel has emerged so far and that binds us together: our common commitment to service.
I asked our excellent Library for a few statistics, and I thank it for enabling me to give the numbers a human face—something that is so absent from this clinical Bill. I would like to put the numbers in the context of our hereditary colleagues’ loyal service to your Lordships’ House and to the country. Some 48 of our 87 hereditary colleagues serve as committee members, two as committee chairs. Six of our hereditary colleagues serve as Lord Deputy Speakers: one non-affiliated, one Conservative, three Cross-Bench and one Labour. Eleven of our hereditary colleagues serve on the Opposition or Liberal Democrat Front Benches, or, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as Convenor of the Cross Benches.
If we look at attendance, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us, we can all agree that it is a really useful and important indicator of commitment to your Lordships’ House. In the 2019-24 Parliament, life Peers attended 47% of the time; our hereditary colleagues attended 49%.
Finally, I will mention length of service and dedication to duty. The average length of service of our hereditary colleagues is 23 years, and the longest length of service is 62 years. That alone is impressive.
There is one figure the significance of which puts the whole concept of loyal dedication and service to your Lordships’ House in perspective: 2,080. That is the total years of service given to your Lordships’ House by our 88—now 87—hereditary colleagues, if we include those who were re-elected following the 1999 reforms. The tragedy of this Bill is that it implies that that counts for nothing. Instead, our cherished, dedicated hereditary colleagues are to be cast out. Look at them, my Lords: they sit among us today, continuing to serve loyally while we debate their fate and they languish—politically at least—on death row, awaiting a summary execution. Is this really how they deserve to be treated?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I have not spoken previously in the debate on the Bill. I apologise to the Committee, but I have been sitting, watching and listening carefully, from a distance. From a distance, trying to be a member of the public looking in, I can see why, occasionally, allegations have been made that the House conducts itself in a disgraceful way.
If this amendment is carried, we know perfectly well that it will go to the Commons and be overturned there and not come back, or, if it does come back, that it will be subject to ping-pong. On and on we will keep debating, wasting time and using public money, when we know that, at the end of the day, if we get a deal, it will be a very small deal indeed.
If we do get a small deal, I ask the mover of the amendment this. I am over 80 years old and believe that, after they have dealt with the hereditaries, the Government should move on to deal with the other part of their manifesto: the 80 year-olds. I believe that they should do that because I am a democrat and I believe I am accountable to the people, not just to myself or my party. If it comes to the 80 year-olds, do we then decide who among us work hardest and who are the brightest? Who among us should we retain and who should we kick out? Will the mover of the amendment please say whether she would wish that principle to be applied to that part of the Government’s policy, which has been endorsed in a manifesto by the people of this country?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is always difficult in this debate, which has been difficult for many, to justify some of the arguments on logic alone. The Leader of the House has presented some logical arguments, some of which are not really arguable against. She is right on logic: it is slightly absurd that 740 families provide Members of the legislature—but then, perhaps, is it logical that one family provides the monarchy?
The very small numbers that we have in this House seem fair and reasonable, and appropriate for a country that prides itself on its history and traditions. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in this country. Why do we not plan to knock down this crumbling building and replace it with a vast, super-efficient, open-plan glass and steel structure, with views across the Thames?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am coming to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in a minute.
Of course, we would not do that. Likewise, I believe we can respect where we come from and recognise our rich fabric of community by allowing people who are proven to be good at their job and represent how democracy came to this country over centuries, as power was wrestled from the monarchy, to be allowed to continue to have a presence here.
As a meritocrat, I accept the argument that the best people should be appointed to this House, and it is not as if we would start from here by appointing new hereditaries—although my mum keeps telling me that she reckons I am up for an earldom, but I think that is unlikely. I hasten to add that, in my view, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, anyone in this House who does not contribute sufficiently and appropriately should be asked to leave forthwith. This amendment would allow people who are clearly capable, and who have the hugely valuable assets of institutional memory and years of experience, to remain.
I had in my script to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is right—it is not an expression I am used to, but she none the less makes the point that the hereditaries in this House fought to come in, through an election, because they wanted to serve.
If we are totally honest with ourselves, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, a certain randomness as to why any of us are here. The little that I know about the appointment process has shown me that it is perhaps more random than is generally recognised. I suggest to the Committee that to adopt the amendment is to do the right thing for people who have served us well and continue so to do.
We are told that poll after poll supports the abolition of hereditaries, and that might be true—I am not so sure. Even if it is, I think most people would accept that there is room for a very small percentage of Members of this House to come from a hereditary background and be allowed to serve their time. This amendment is in another fine British tradition: for a suitable compromise to be acceptable.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is an important Bill, and I am sorry not to have spoken on it before, owing to my commitments on the Front Bench at a busy time for the economy. My noble friend Lady Mobarik is right to press the Government on the transitional arrangements. I will focus on two points in that context. The first is the loss of talent and experience that we face, and the damage that that could do to our scrutiny function at a time of great challenge and change in our country. The second is the pressure that will grow for an elected House if all our hereditary Peers disappear overnight, as currently planned.
I have been reading a book called Judgement at Work by Andrew Likierman, a former dean of the London Business School. He defines judgment as
“the combination of personal qualities with relevant knowledge and experience … to make decisions or to form opinions”.
Length of time in a role, or a succession of roles, improves judgment because prior experiences remain accessible sources of knowledge and provide an understanding of success and failure.
We are lucky to have many long servers among our hereditary Peers—280 years of service, in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. Many also have experience of responsibility outside government and have learned, over time, to cope with complexity and risk, to listen, to work with others and to know who to trust. Those are all ingredients of judgment—soundness of judgment—as well. In view of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, I should add “hard work” as a very important quality that has been demonstrated by the hereditary Peers.
They also come from across the country. We heard from my noble friend Lady Mobarik about Scotland and from my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee about the importance of Northern Ireland representation. They provide a good mix, as we have seen today, with other Members of the House who are often from political backgrounds and very focused on the south-east.
To develop the argument, I will cite three examples. The first is our deputy Conservative leader, my noble friend Lord Howe. He has sat in this House for 40 years and is a master of the art of scrutiny in the most courteous and compelling way. When I arrived, he was a Health Minister and the person whom I and most others chose to model ourselves on—effective at the Dispatch Box, in the tea rooms and in Whitehall. More recently, he steered the difficult legislation on infected blood through the House, working across party to excellent effect. All that experience as a Minister of Agriculture, Health, Defence and at the FCO, and in opposition, is helpful to the Government of the day and to the House as a whole.
My second example is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on amendments to the national insurance contributions Bill. He worked as a foreign correspondent at the start of his career, but he is a serial entrepreneur and was able to produce spreadsheets on the impact of the NICs changes on small businesses he was involved with—which the Treasury unfortunately had refused to provide. It would be a great pity to lose that practical business voice. Some life Peers, including myself, speak in the House with the benefit of business spectacles, but, of course, we get out of date as we cease to be involved with business day to day. Keeping voices such as that of my noble friend Lord Londesborough would help us to reach sound, common-sense judgments from experience.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has an impressive background in finance and he brings that to our debates and committees. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, noted the hereditaries’ important role in committees. I highlight the valuable role the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, played in particular as chair of the House’s Finance Committee. He may not thank me for saying so, as the concept probably will not see the light of day, but he suggested to me the brilliant idea of dealing with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster by building a small US-style service tower in one of the courtyards, no doubt in Pugin style, and then concreting in the basement services. This novel idea would reduce the risk of fire and of asbestos contamination during the renovation and, I suspect, would cost much less. The point is that it shows the value of critical thinking—we must not lose that.
That brings me on to my second theme. I think the current mixture of Peers appointed by successive Prime Ministers, especially if there are not too many of them, Bishops and the historic element, just about works, partly because of the mix of views, experience, age and skills that are represented. Without those who are currently hereditaries, it becomes much more difficult to justify a wholly appointed House. Moreover, giving a lot of power to the great and the good on HOLAC would not help at all. I believe that, if we indulge the brutal decapitation of the hereditary Peers later this year, we will rightly face growing demands for an elected House. Noble Lords should reflect on this and on the discussions today around my noble friend’s amendment before they vote on this Bill. In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need evolution, not revolution.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I just correct her on regional balance? So far as I am aware, at present we have only one hereditary Peer in the House from Yorkshire. I think the north of England is very underrepresented and there has been, I regret to say, with the hereditary peerage, a tendency for young generations to move to the Home Counties over the years and, of course, to go to school in the Home Counties as well. So the regional representation of the hereditaries is not particularly good.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I understand why noble Lords opposite would like to terminate debate, but I think there is a case for going a little bit further. Since noble Lords have allowed themselves some personal reflections, perhaps I can first add one of my own, which is that, when I was introduced to this House, one of my supporters was a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer. I will not mention his name, because I have not told him in advance that I am going to make these remarks. It all went back to the fact that, more than 40 years ago, I used to play bridge with his mother, and when he made his maiden speech shortly after his 21st birthday, I sat with his mother in the Peeresses’ Gallery and listened to him. We remained in touch and so, when I was being introduced, I thought that it was time for some payback. He willingly agreed, adding that he had never in the whole of his time in the House been asked to sponsor anybody at their introduction, so he was very happy to do so.
He has served throughout that time because he survived the Blair cull. He has been committed to the House and he has worked hard. What so many people find unfair—as I said, I have not discussed these remarks with him at all—is that he is to be expelled not because of lack of merit, not because of lack of commitment, not because of lack of expertise, but simply because of the way in which he entered the House. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, there seems to be an inherent unfairness in that.
I turn to the amendment, which I support. I emphasise that this amendment is not about the hereditary principle. It is about the principle of expulsion. We seem to be taking it for granted that an act of expulsion is sort of okay, whereas, in fact, it is almost entirely without precedent. There is the baleful precedent of Pride’s Purge, and since then the only example of the expulsion of people as a class from Parliament was what happened in 1999. To take that as a precedent so that it becomes, if you like, a normal thing for groups to be expelled from one House of Parliament or another, but more likely from this House, according to—I will not say the whims, but perhaps the vagaries of what might appear in manifestos is a very bad principle indeed. It does not affect only the hereditary Peers; it affects all of us because one can divide and one can create those criteria for expulsion according to, really, anything that fits, and can achieve political and other objectives in doing so.
When we say, “A whole group of us is to be expelled”, we appear to have a precedent for it in 1999, I grant you that, but it is not a good precedent. It is not a precedent that should be repeated. The proposal made by my noble friend Lady Mobarik avoids that and puts that danger at some distance from us. So I think that there are broader reasons for accepting it than simply our admiration of and friendship with the individuals involved in this case. There are broader reasons of principle for accepting it and I urge the Front Bench to consider them on constitutional grounds.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment. It is consistent with the Government’s manifesto pledge, in that it accepts the principle of removing the hereditary Peers. I am not sympathetic to that change and I do not go along with the assumptions on which it is proposed. None the less, I accept that the Government have given their manifesto pledge and they have the right to make this change.
That, however, does not preclude the arrangement proposed by my noble friend. If anything, it should open the way for it. Such a major change in the legislature of this country is a matter of constitutional importance, as is the separation of powers and how we are governed. In these matters, an evolutionary approach is best. This amendment opens the way for retaining the expertise of some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated Peers.
British political history may have been dramatic during its other periods of constitutional change. None the less, the arrangements—whether extending the franchise in the 19th century, Catholic emancipation, or Irish home rule and then the treaty with Ireland—were evolutionary. They incorporated something of what went before by allowing for a gradual evolution, not a violent upheaval.
Similarly, reform of this House has been gradual and saved something of what went before. This brought Britain political stability, and brought stability to our democracy, unlike in the cases of other friends and neighbours, such as France, which is a unitary power like Britain but did not necessarily follow the evolutionary approach. We see reports that this continues, even to the present day.
This Bill is a Labour Party measure. I have nothing but admiration for the party opposite, which emerged as a main party of government in the early 20th century. It accepted the constitutional conventions and it helped democracy in this country to evolve. It was also helped by the restraint of the Conservative leadership, which refused, as one interwar Prime Minister put it, to “fire the first shot”. This was not because of a desire to appease politically but as the means of enabling Britain’s democracy to evolve gradually—and evolve it did.
Labour won power, first in 1924, again in 1929 and then, dramatically, in 1945. It was given a fair crack of the whip to get on with the manifesto pledge and be judged at the end of the Parliament on the whole package of how well it did in power. Similarly, with this House, there has been an evolutionary, not political, change. There is a settled constitutional way of proceeding, consistent with the manifesto pledge. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment—that they will accept the established and successful way of incorporating something that has gone before. I hope that they will, in this way, signify their respect for the consensual approach to constitutional change, and that they will not fire the first shot.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
I shall be brief. I apologise; I have not spoken on this Bill so far. Noble Lords who know me will know that one of the reasons is because my fantastic mother-in-law, Dorothy Ann Bray, started end-of-life care and has now passed away. This is the first time I have spoken since then.
I like this amendment, but I do not agree that it is perfect. I urge the usual channels to find a way to work together to make sure this House can come together behind whatever the final solution is. For me, that is all that matters. I appreciate that the Government have a mandate for change, but my children and my grand- children live in this country and I do not want them to think that we have a petty and vindictive Government. If this is about the principle and not the numbers, they must succeed with the principle but find a way of protecting the actual people who we all live and work with and care about.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Mobarik for initiating this debate and all those who spoke, notably those formidable Baronesses, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I believe that a number of our colleagues who face summary exclusion under this Bill will have been greatly touched by what my noble friend Lady Mobarik said, the perspective from which she said it and the way that she said it. I think that they will also have been touched by much that others said too.
There has been a great deal of talk about respect throughout Committee, which I believe has been thoughtful. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it has raised important issues touching the House. Our debates have generally reflected great credit on all sides. I am sure that the expressions of respect for our hereditary colleagues are meant by all. I understand that it does not always feel like that when you see a Bill that tells you, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin pointed out, in a powerful speech—the second he has made in your Lordships’ Committee—that whatever you have done in this accumulation of 2,080 years of public service cannot change one dot or comma of the sentence of expulsion. We all need to contemplate that, and that has been the ask from the Committee in this debate. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made a Shakespearean allusion, and I have to say:
“The quality of mercy is not strained”.
A sense of magnanimity is in the air.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us of the dedication of so many hereditary Peers and compared them against the service, or lack of service, of many Peers who are not being excluded under the legislation before us. That thought and sentiment was echoed by others in the debate.
How do we go forward? The noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not in his place, said in an earlier debate that he did not think there should be horse-trading between party leaders inside or outside this House about who should stay. My noble friend Lady Mobarik also said that she did not care for back-room deals. I understand those feelings, but it surely need not be everyone who goes or no one. There is a middle ground and, as my noble friend Lady Mobarik challenged us all, does this Committee as a collective really wish to lose all the good people who she and so many others have referenced in the course of this debate?
As I have said before in your Lordships’ Committee, and as we have heard from all sides in today’s debate, there is another party to this matter, beyond the party-political interests of the two Front Benches—mine or of the party opposite—and beyond even those deep family instincts that surely we all understand across the House drive us in the views that we take, particularly on this type of question, and that in fact make the great political parties what they are—the sense of their tradition and the sense of their aspirations. That other party to this matter beyond our two parties is this great House itself.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I say from the start that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and respect her. Certainly, I welcome her contributions to this House, and many times in debates we have been on the same side, which reflects how this House operates. I had to decide whether in responding I should respond to the amendment or to the debate. I have decided that I will follow the Companion and stick to the amendment.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to compel the Prime Minister to recommend 87 new Peers. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is absolutely right: is that really what we want to do in terms of where we are? I also point out that while the noble Baroness’s amendment says that she wants to mirror the political balance of the outgoing hereditary Peers, there is nothing in it that would guarantee any hereditary Peer remaining in this House, so I am not sure what the last hour has been all about.
Nevertheless, I want to focus. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, summed it up—and I agree with her—when she said that we are a country that takes constitutional change gradually. I recall from the Labour manifesto in 1901—I do not recall it; I remember reading about it—that we were seeking then to abolish the House of Lords. We have changed our mind over time. We have reached a sort of view about it. The hereditary principle was addressed over 25 years ago, and the noble Lord opposite has said that it has gone. We do not support the hereditary principle when it comes to this legislative House.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the transitional arrangements that were made over 25 years ago are now going to come to an end. We have had 25 years to look at a sensible way of dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord Grocott has offered many opportunities to do it on a gradual basis which have all been rejected, primarily by noble Lords opposite.
We have now reached the point where we have a manifesto commitment to deal with this issue. I understand why the noble Baroness has made her amendment and understand the nature of the debate, but, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has set out many times before, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. In doing so, the Prime Minister invites nominations from party leaders across the House, so, again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is nothing stopping him making recommendations to his leader to include hereditary Peers in any new list. Why not do that? Why not offer that transitional arrangement? It is not for us to decide who stays in this House. It is not for us to decide whom the leader of the Conservative Party decides to recommend to the Prime Minister—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Will the noble Lord just explain how that works for the Cross Benches?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I was going to come to that point, but as the noble Lord gives me the opportunity, let me say that my noble friend the Leader has addressed that. She is working in consultation and wants to have further discussions about how we address that issue. Certainly, I am confident that we will be able to do so, because I think the Cross-Benchers play a very important role in this House, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches is a hereditary Peer.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
If the noble Lord is prepared to have those discussions with the Cross Benches, what is wrong with the Official Opposition? Why can he not have the same discussions with them?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat: the Prime Minister of this country has made an offer. In terms of the new Peers that we have recently had introduced into this House, the Conservative Party was offered more than Labour was ever offered in previous nominations. It is a very important point: the simple fact is that, if the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to nominate hereditary Peers to life peerages, they can do so. This amendment—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not mind being interrupted, but what is the point?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House knows that that is not the case. The leader of the Opposition can make nominations when the Prime Minister graciously allows her to do so. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister when and how many.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Correct, and you have just had six; you could have nominated hereditary Peers as life Peers. There was nothing stopping you—nothing. The important point is that we have had opportunities to deal with this issue over the last 25 years and have not done so. As a consequence, Labour put in its manifesto a clear commitment to deal with the hereditary principle once and for all, which is what we have before us in this very short, simple Bill.
Let me just address this point. The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. In deciding the number of these nominations, the Prime Minister considers a range of factors, of course, including the political balance of the House. Certainly, retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always be needed to ensure the House has appropriate expertise and, as has been said before, there is no reason why hereditary Peers cannot be nominated in future lists. Political parties have the opportunity to do that. My noble friend the Leader has recognised the special position of Cross-Benchers and committed to discuss it with the relevant parties. That is the commitment she has made.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is concerned with the party balance of the House, I remind your Lordships that even if this Bill is passed the Government Benches will make up 28% of this Chamber, compared to 31% for the party opposite. As my noble friend the Leader has said before to your Lordships, this House functions best when there are roughly equal numbers between the two main parties; I stand by that. As I have said to the noble Baroness, there are many occasions when we operate on a cross-party basis. I do not see that this Bill will change that one bit—far from it. It will bring about a more sensible balance in this House.
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, this amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate for this Bill and I respectfully request that she withdraws it.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord has returned to the question of numbers, completely ignoring the points I made about other ways of addressing that. I set that to one side but, as I understood it, his concept was, “Well, you”—I do not think that he can have meant me—“can send some people here if you want to”. The Government are about to expel 44 of our people. Is the noble Lord saying that the leader of the Opposition can name 44 who will come straight back? That appeared to be the logic of his position. Will he answer the specific point on numbers? The Prime Minister decides the numbers; that is the fact.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Certainly I know that is the case, and we found that out the hard way in the past 14 years. But can I just say—and the noble Lord knows this—we are dealing with an imbalance at the moment? He keeps talking about how many Conservative Peers are hereditary, but that is not the question in this Bill. The question in this Bill is about the principle of hereditary Peers, not about whether they are Conservative. In fact, so much of the debate has been about how they are not political and not partisan, but then the noble Lord keeps repeating how many of them are Conservative.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all those who have participated in this debate and shown their support for the intention behind my amendment. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, decided not to respond to the debate as such. I thought that that was the purpose of Committee stage.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is one hereditary Peer whom I do miss greatly, and that is the Countess of Mar. She would have jumped up many times and said, “Please, your Lordships, speak to the amendment” —and that is what I was trying to do.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
Thank you—I shall remember that on the next occasion.
There have been so many notable speeches today, but time does not permit me to mention all of them. I think that this debate has shown that we on these Benches, joined by others across this House, are not trying to hold on to the hereditary principle but want to hold on to our hereditary colleagues. I strongly believe that my amendment would provide a civilised, mannerly and appropriate way in which to manage ourselves, in keeping with the customs and courtesies of our great House.
There is clearly widespread support for some kind of transitional arrangement, and I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will reflect on this very carefully and take my noble friend Lord True up on his very fair and reasonable offer before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hoey
“Review: Northern IrelandWithin 24 months of the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must produce a report assessing the desirability of increased representation of Members from Northern Ireland in the House of Lords.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there has been quite a lot of talk about the reason for His Majesty’s Government’s moves on this Bill, and I want to go back to the beginning of it. I shall go back to when the Minister for the Constitution, the right honourable Member of Parliament for Torfaen, Mr Nick Thomas-Symonds, speaking in a very blasé kind of Cabinet Office video, expressed the Government’s motivation for this legislation in these terms. He said that the legislation was needed because:
“I want young people growing up … in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else … in making the laws of the land”.
In other words, his point was that the existence of the category of hereditary Peers contains within it a bar to public service because, as the young people in Mr Thomas-Symonds’ constituency, and indeed every other constituency, look at the option of public service by means of serving as a hereditary Peer, that option is of course by definition closed to them unless they are from a tiny minority of people who happen to have a parent or grandparent who carries a hereditary title.
I understood that the Government’s aim in this was to create a United Kingdom in which there is no reason in principle why membership of the Lords, for the purpose of making laws, should not be open to any UK citizen, subject to the other parameters in paragraph 1.2 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, and to give everyone the right in principle to be considered for appointment to the upper House. However, the Cabinet Office video and the Government’s stated intention regarding the hereditary Peers Bill cause some considerable concern to not just me but the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has signed the amendment, and others in Northern Ireland.
We have received, as other Peers may have, a letter from 15 young people on the subject that has moved me to table this amendment, after a great deal of discussion with the Public Bill Office. The signatories all live in Northern Ireland and for the most part are students or have not long left university. They are all young. They begin by referencing the Cabinet Office video and the Minister’s reason for the Bill, which I have just read out but will repeat:
“I want young people growing up … in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land”.
In response to this, the young people state:
“It is quite extraordinary that the Minister should have uttered these words at the same time the Irish Sea Border was affecting the most dramatic reversal of UK citizenship in our history, removing from us all means of making the laws to which we are subject not just in relation to one law or 300 but 300 areas of law. The truth is that the presence of 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords in no way threatens our right, along with the rest of the population, to be considered for Life peerages. Similarly, they do not impact in any way our right to stand for election to the House of Commons or Northern Ireland Assembly. The Irish Sea border, by contrast, not only threatens that right; it nullifies it completely in 300 areas of law, denying us the rights enjoyed by our peers in Torfaen and everywhere else in the country to make the laws of the land. The Government cannot, on the one hand, lecture young people about the importance of active citizenship and yet, on the other hand, say, it’s so unimportant that all the people of one part of the UK should be happy to lose it in relation to 300 areas of law. There may be some people in Government who don’t think Northern Ireland matters but they should think about the wider messaging implications of their actions for young people across the whole UK. How can something that is vital in one part of the country be vital in that part of the country if in another part of the country it can be dispensed with? Consistency is important. ‘Do as I say not as I do’ never really works”.
Their point is simple. The Windsor Framework effectively denies them access to any legislature making the laws to which they are subject in a staggering 300 areas, and removing the hereditary Peers will not change that.
It feels as if we in Northern Ireland are subject to a classic conjuror’s illusion, where our eyes are being led away from confronting the greatest ever assault on the integrity of UK citizenship and towards a comparatively minor adjustment in the opposite direction that it hopes will capture our attention. These young people have not been taken in by that illusion and have asked me to table an amendment for two reasons: first, to expose the injustice and hypocrisy of the Government’s position and to challenge it; and, secondly, to warn that the erosion of UK citizenship as a whole is inherent in its erosion in Northern Ireland, and we kid ourselves if we pretend that is not the case.
The UK’s position as a strong polity depends on people being active citizens—voting, standing for election and making themselves available to serve as Peers. That in turn depends on people believing that our citizenship matters. That is quite impossible to do if your Government tell people that their citizenship is so unimportant in one part of the United Kingdom that it can be dispensed with in a staggering 300 areas of law. You cannot do that in one part of the country without it undermining the value and importance of UK citizenship generally. The Government have shown that, far from being essential, citizenship can at least in part be dispensed with.
I acknowledge that increasing the number of Northern Ireland Peers provides no answer to the injustice created by the Windsor Framework. There is nothing to be gained by having more people in place here to exercise the more limited citizenship that has been imposed on Northern Ireland people. We need the restoration of our full citizenship so that the young, and indeed all people in Northern Ireland, have the right in common with the rest of the UK—the common right that validates that we are one country, a body politic—to stand for election, to make themselves available for nomination to your Lordships’ House and to make all the laws of the land.
After that letter was sent to some Peers, a cross-party letter appeared this morning in the Daily Telegraph, signed by a number of these young people—some members of political parties, some not. We have had quite a lot of support come in already from young people in Great Britain. I name some of them who have spoken out this morning: Jacob Watts from Cambridge, Tom Gartside from Newcastle, Kane Blackwell and Scott Lewis from Cardiff. In the same way that young people in Northern Ireland are feeling about this, it is not going to take a lot to get young people across the country to realise that their citizenship and all the talk about getting young people involved are a nonsense when it comes to something like this.
The important thing is that sometimes—and this happens with individuals—you live in denial and keep pretending that if you just ignore it, it does not matter. It is the same with Governments. The Government should—and, if they wanted to, they could now—go back to the European Union and tell it that the Windsor Framework is not working, because it disrespects the territorial integrity of the UK in violation of international law, partly disfranchises 1.9 million UK citizens and is, as such, unsustainable.
My amendment says, “Think behind this”. This is not just about getting rid of hereditary Peers. What we have done in Northern Ireland is a disgrace to the citizenship of our citizens, particularly to the young people of the future. I am moving my amendment to get that debate, but I hope that both the Government and the Opposition will not try just to deal with the actual amendment. Of course we would like more Peers from Northern Ireland, but that is a very different matter from the crucial issue I am trying to raise today. I beg to move.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say a few words on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
When Ireland and Scotland had representative Peers, there were 28 Irish and 16 Scottish representative Peers. Now, I believe there are 22 Irish Peers born in Ireland and 61 Scottish Peers born in Scotland. Recent population figures for Scotland showed a population of about 5.5 million, and for Ireland about 2 million. But as the Irish representative Peers represented the whole of Ireland, overall the Northern Irish are fairly represented in the House of Lords, with 22 Peers against 28 representatives for the whole of Ireland before the Republic came into existence. Perhaps Scotland has too many Peers now, compared with its former representative Peers.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. This is no surprise, as I have my name attached to it. I can think of no more eloquent a way of doing so than commending to noble Lords, and the right honourable Member for Torfaen in the other place, the social media video made by young people in Northern Ireland in response to the Cabinet Office video introducing the Bill. It is regrettable that the Cabinet Office put out that particular video.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I did not intend to support the debate on this particular amendment. However, having listened to the debate thus far, I think it is probably quite important that I say just one thing.
I did not get the letter to which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, have referred—I am not quite sure why I did not get it as a Northern Ireland Peer, but I did not. I want to speak because it is important to reassure young people in Northern Ireland that they are not being disenfranchised, that they do have the right to stand for election in the United Kingdom and that, equally, they have the right to apply for admission here through the House of Lords Appointments Commission, as I did.
I work with Learn with the Lords, and most recently I attended Banbridge Academy in Northern Ireland. Some weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, once a pupil at Banbridge Academy, was introduced into your Lordships’ House. When I presented to those young people in Banbridge Academy, I showed them the video of the introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and said to them, as I always say to the students to whom I speak, “You too can do this. The House of Lords is a place to which you can apply, but before you get there you are going to have to work very, very hard and build yourself a reputation”. So that is my first point. I want to reassure the young people of Northern Ireland that nothing in the Bill or indeed in the Windsor Framework disenfranchises them.
I want to say a brief word about the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. There are issues, and the scrutiny committee is working on those issues and will take evidence tomorrow from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. But, apart from that, there is a recognition in Northern Ireland of advantage in the Windsor Framework. Businesses have given evidence to the predecessor Windsor Framework committee, to the effect that they had gained significant advantages from the existence of the Windsor Framework.
I just wanted to introduce a note of balance, to reassure young people and to say that all is not gloom and doom in Northern Ireland.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Hoey and Lord Morrow, having similarly been in receipt of representations from young people in Northern Ireland.
What the Minister for the Constitution, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said is worthy of repeating:
“I want young people growing up in … my constituency, and … every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/24; col. 719.]
That is very thoughtful of him, yet at the very same time that Minister would have fully known that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was less than three weeks away from sending a Motion to Stormont, on 31 October, asking MLAs to agree to the disfranchisement of their constituents, in relation to not just one law but a staggering 300 areas of law, as has been outlined by my noble friends.
For the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to suggest to this Committee that young people are not being denied rights that others throughout the United Kingdom are receiving is not factual. The rights of young people—in fact, of the people of Northern Ireland—are not the same as those throughout the United Kingdom, and I will give the reason why.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I have to point out to the noble Lord that a young person who applies from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland has equal rights to make law here in Westminster and in the devolved Assemblies. There is no difference. There is a different situation in Northern Ireland with regard to the framework, but the noble Lord is not correct in what he says.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
There are 300 areas of law that apply to people in Northern Ireland over which no elected representative, either here or in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has any control. That has not happened for England, Scotland, or Wales. I cannot understand how the noble Baroness, who has a bright past and certainly tremendous knowledge, would not understand the difference. There are 300 areas of law over which they have no control whatever. No matter how many elected representatives they send to either Westminster or the Assembly, they have no power over those areas of law.
It is bad enough to pressure MLAs to vote to disfranchise their constituents in 300 areas of law, but to do so while the Minister was trying to pretend that the Government are so committed to opening up lawmaking to all that they feel bound to do away with hereditary Peers generates an overall progressive impression that they are so divorced from the impact of their actions and delivers a message that serves only to greatly compound the underlying sense of injustice.
Moreover, I believe that it is an insult to hereditary Peers to suggest that it is a government priority to remove them while at the same time pressing changes on British citizens in Northern Ireland that impact on their lives in 300 areas of law over which they have no say, nor any democratic input.
On 1 March 2023, my colleague and noble friend Lord Morrow read out a submission from an 18 year- old student, Jack Steele. I wish to remind the Committee of something of what he said:
“As I have mentioned, I would like to see the importance of my rights restored to an equal footing with that of other members of the United Kingdom. I would like to see the rights which my parents enjoyed for 25 years, delegated to me. I would like to see the continuity of peace and civility rather than violence and disorder. I would like to see the restoration of democracy in Northern Ireland. I am young and I have a life to live. It’s my desire to see Northern Ireland work and to make a difference. However, I cannot make a difference as the right to elect people to legislate … has been stripped from my generation”
in 300 areas of law.
Two years later, we are no further along, and a generation of young people are disfranchised. That is why they are asking us today to raise our voices in this Committee and demand that they are made subject only to the laws which their elected representatives have decided and can therefore be held accountable for at the ballot box, and to stop the continual imposition of EU legislation on the people of Northern Ireland. They simply ask that they be treated on equal footing with the young people of England, Scotland and Wales.
Is it too much to ask that we not direct our focus and energies on removing hereditary Peers, which would make little difference to the lives of our young people in Northern Ireland, and instead divert our resources to stop the denial of democracy in Northern Ireland and rightfully restore the democratic rights of these young people?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, talked about how we need to think about our messaging. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has spoken about the denial of democracy and problems with democracy. I think that, as a House, we need to think about how we look to the outside world and where we are now in context. We look across to the United States and we see the subversion of constitutional democracy. We see here an increasingly disillusioned public, particularly the disillusioned young, throughout the country, not just in Northern Ireland.
I have just finished reading the latest book of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, the title of which is, Could it Happen Here? If we look ahead and think about the implications for British politics of the next four or five years—in which we may well have an economy that does not grow, foreign threats appearing much more serious, and foreign interference not only from Russia and China but from anti-democratic groups and billionaires within the United States—we could find ourselves, by the next general election, in a very difficult situation that challenges the assumptions of our democracy.
I say to the Conservatives here that, if they are still happily thinking about our established two-party system, they have not looked at the opinion polls for the last several months, in which our two established parties have been receiving well under 50% of public support, in which four parties have been receiving more than 10%—Reform has been up there, way ahead of the Conservative Party, most of the time—and in which the likelihood of turnout in the next general election dropping further ought seriously to concern us.
In his book, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, sets out a scenario for a future election taking place under conditions of economic difficulties, foreign interference and foreign threats, and disorder on the streets. That is serious. That is a threat to our constitutional democracy. That is what we ought to be considering, rather than, if I may respectfully suggest so, being overindulgent by talking about ourselves and a very modest—too modest—proposal for further minor reforms to the way this House operates. I appeal from these Benches that we recognise the context we are in and pay attention to that, rather than to ourselves.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I commend the amendment brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Morrow, and commend the young people who have helped to provoke this debate. I agree with the previous speaker that we need to focus on the future. Looking to our young people and to what we can do for them is very much at the heart of that.
I support this amendment, but not because I believe that Northern Ireland is the best part of the United Kingdom, nor because I believe that the Peers that come from Northern Ireland bring the greatest level of sagacity to this House. Those two things are self-evidently true, but I support this amendment because it identifies two deficiencies within the Bill. It does not do violence to the Bill but points out two things that we need to consider for the future.
Many unkind critics of the Bill will see the removal of the hereditary Peers by the current Government as a party-political gesture: throwing red meat to the activists within the Labour Party. Perhaps even unkinder people may say that it is used to distract from some of the actions of the Government in the last number of months—over pensioners, the WASPI women, the farmers or, most recently, those on disability benefits. I am sure that the Government would very clearly deny that. However, that denial has a level of credibility only if the actions taken in this Bill move beyond that one simple action of the removal of the hereditary Peers towards a much wider reform of our democracy and of this House.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, does that by starting to look towards the future. What should the composition of this House be in the future? Undoubtedly, in terms of composition, we have a much more diverse House than we had a number of years ago. I recently viewed one of the old episodes of “Yes, Minister”, in which Sir Humphrey was sitting around the table with eight or nine of his Permanent Secretary colleagues, every one of them male, every one of them middle-aged and every one of them middle-class. He concluded a discussion by saying, “Well, I don’t think we could get a more diverse group of individuals than us here”.
Thankfully, we have begun to move away from those days. We have a much more diverse group of people within the House of Lords, from a wide range of backgrounds. But that is not to suggest that we can rest on our laurels. One area where we are still lacking is in a level of regional diversity throughout the United Kingdom. This House should be the voice of all parts of the United Kingdom. When I talk about regional balance, I do not mean between competing boroughs in north London; I mean throughout the entire country. In future, we need to reflect that. The amendment makes specific reference to Northern Ireland, but it could be true of other elements. In debate on one of the earlier amendments, it was mentioned that only one of the hereditary Peers came from Yorkshire, for example. We need to have that wider reflection. Therefore, keeping an observance of the composition of this House as we move forward and recognising that there is widespread representation of the diversity of this country, particularly on a regional basis, is important.
My second reason for commending this amendment, and the second gap that has been identified, is that the supposed driving force behind this amendment was a step towards equality, a step towards greater democracy and a step towards accountability. A case may be made that this is a step in that direction, but it rings hollow when people from my part of the United Kingdom are denied that level of equality, that level of democracy and that level of accountability, because of the current arrangements in place in the post-Brexit situation.
Two things need to happen to rectify that. First, the frictions that are there in terms of the Irish Sea need to be removed completely. We need to see, as the first step, the Government honouring what has been pledged in the past. When the previous Government proposed changes, the current Government, then in opposition, were fully in support of those. Yet we are now a number of months into the new Government and have not seen the speed of action that needs to take place. That is not simply a political point coming from these Benches. Evidence is being given of the daily impact on the ground by retailers, some of the large supermarkets, the haulage companies and the freight companies. That evidence will tell you of the friction that is there. Actions that need to be taken.
Secondly, as has been highlighted, for Northern Ireland a deep democratic deficit has been left, which means that, uniquely, we are left in a situation in which, on a wide range of our laws, we are placed in a different position from the rest of the United Kingdom. Solutions can be pursued. My preferred solution would be mutual enforcement. However, we are told by the Government that they are going to do a reset with Europe. Nobody is quite clear what that means. I suspect that the parameters of any form of reset are probably changing on a relatively daily basis as the world changes. If the Prime Minister is to be genuine in what he means by a broader reset, we need to see a reset which treats all the United Kingdom on an exactly equal basis, with exactly the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions as any other part of the United Kingdom. We need to see a reset not simply with our wider external relations or indeed the internal unity of the United Kingdom. If this Bill and this amendment are to have value, we need to see a reset of our democracy, our sense of equality and our sense of accountability. This amendment has been very useful in provoking that debate.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I can say without fear of contradiction that our former colleague the Countess of Mar would have been incredibly voluble over the past 35 minutes or so.
I rise to make my first contribution to proceedings on this Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. Speaking as somebody whose origins are in the city of Leeds, some 200 miles away from north London, I hasten to add that my origins are about as far removed from the world of hereditary Peers, stately homes and landed estates as it is possible to be. I put on record my strong opposition to the measures contained in this legislation, and indeed the motivations behind it. The Bill, should it go through unamended, will sweep away centuries of unique British heritage and tradition from Parliament and our national life. The House that remains will be a fundamentally different institution, and not for the better.
I intend to pay some lip service to the Standing Orders and actually speak to the terms of the amendment on the Order Paper before the House this evening. However, while preparing to speak to the amendment, I could not help but reflect on the role and representation of Northern Ireland Peers in your Lordships’ House and the contribution that Peers of Ireland over many centuries have made, which continues in a small way to this day. Some of these titles in the Peerage of Ireland predate the Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who was in his place a short while ago, are two examples. Their forebears would have been entitled to sit in the pre-union Irish House of Lords in Dublin. Incidentally, the Chamber of the Irish House of Lords is preserved intact inside the Bank of Ireland, the old Parliament House, opposite Trinity College on College Green, should noble Lords wish to visit it. I would very much recommend that they do; it is well worth it.
After 1801 and the union, the Peers of Ireland, around 100-strong, did not gain the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Some, such as Lord Palmerston, spent their entire careers in the House of Commons. It might be argued by some that, under the union, when it came to the hereditary peerage, there was an Irish Sea border. Instead of the automatic right, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook reminded us, under Article 4 of the union, a fixed number of 28 Irish representative Peers were elected from among the peerage of Ireland to serve here for life. Some Peers of Ireland were also given peerages of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. This practice continued into the 20th century. For those who think that by-elections to your Lordships’ House are a recent innovation, they actually have a much longer pedigree.
As has been pointed out on a number of occasions during earlier debates on this Bill, the secession of the Irish Free State from the United Kingdom in 1922 did not lead to the ejection of the 28 Irish representative Peers from this House. They were, wisely, allowed to stay, though their numbers were no longer replenished until the last one, the 4th Earl of Kilmorey, died in 1961, thus allowing the Irish representative Peers to disappear from this House gradually with good grace and dignity.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendment, I place on record my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—whose ingenuity, as ever, I admire—on finding a new way for us to debate the Windsor Framework in your Lordships’ House.
I want to reassure all noble Lords who participated in this debate, but especially the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord McCrea and Lord Weir, that I am always more than happy to debate the Windsor Framework and its implementation at any time. In fact, since the general election, we have discussed it in your Lordships’ House, through the method of regret amendments, for many hours, and I have been here, as I am sure the noble Baroness will testify, for every moment of said debates. I therefore hope that noble Lords know of my personal commitment to Northern Ireland, along with that of my noble friend the Leader of the House of Lords.
I know that noble Lords were quoting from the Telegraph today, but I hope that they do not question the commitment of Government Front-Benchers to Northern Ireland and the events happening there. I would welcome a conversation outside this Chamber with the noble Baroness about how we can move forward and perhaps engage with some of the signatories to the letter.
I also want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her reassuring voice and the contribution she has made in respect of young people from across the United Kingdom, but especially from Northern Ireland; this House is as accessible to them as it is to any other British citizen. I say that as a working-class woman born in Edinburgh, educated in Bristol, with a London accent, who is proud to have “Stoke-on-Trent” in my title and to be a Member of your Lordships’ House.
On that note, I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his considered comments on the future of democracy. We have a Question on Thursday which I will be replying to, and which he may like to participate in. I also want to recognise the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and to place on record my thanks to him for hosting me when I visited in February. Brookeborough House now hosts a facility to support veterans who served during the Troubles; it was a privilege to meet him and the veterans at his house.
I want to thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and all noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are clear that this House works best when diverse perspectives are represented, including from all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, we have a number of Peers from Northern Ireland who have brought so much to the House. We currently have 12 former Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, two of whom are former Speakers there, and two former First Ministers. Such diversity deepens and enriches the House’s ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government of the day to account; I think I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Caine, too, on that issue. I, for one, very much enjoy working with noble Lords on these issues, which are so relevant to Members of your Lordships’ House: from legacy-related issues to public service transformation and the post-Brexit trading environment, which has been today’s theme.
As has been mentioned before, it is the responsibility of party leaders, including the Prime Minister, to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords when nominating individuals to your Lordships’ House. I would hope that, as part of that consideration, Prime Ministers reflect on the national and regional representation of this place. The Government have also committed to more fundamental reform by establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Weir. We will consult on proposals to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute their views on how to ensure that the alternative Chamber best serves them. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Baroness withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for responding in her usual way and showing that she actually cares about Northern Ireland. We all know she does very much, and we are very lucky to have her on the Front Bench. I also thank her for mentioning the young people and the Daily Telegraph letter. I was very disappointed that the opposition spokesperson did not even mention that and that he was more interested in the history of Irish Peers. I thank the noble Baroness for that; perhaps it might be helpful if we arrange a meeting for those young people next time she is in Northern Ireland. That would be very helpful.
I will pick up just one point to make this clear. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others mentioned the idea that somehow any young person in Northern Ireland could be elected, just like any other normal person. That is not the point; the point is that they cannot be elected to anywhere that makes the laws for their own country. I really do not understand why noble Peers do not understand this: no one in this House can make laws for part of Northern Ireland in those 300 areas of the law.
I will give your Lordships two quick examples: the two “p”s—pets and parcels. Not a single person in Northern Ireland had a say here about what was going to happen with parcels being sent from people in this country to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. No one had a say on pet passports. They had nothing to do with democracy in this place, in the House of Commons or in Stormont. It is a nonsense to say that people are being treated in the same way.
I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for talking about my ingenuity. Lots of other people are involved in this. I will give way.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but she did accuse me of speaking nonsense. My point is that people from Northern Ireland who are elected to the House of Commons and people from Northern Ireland who serve in your Lordships’ House have the same rights to make law as Peers and Members of Parliament from other parts of the United Kingdom. The fact that we have a situation in Northern Ireland that is slightly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, in terms of the single market, is the product of the Brexit vote and nothing else. The repercussions of it apply across the United Kingdom, so it is incorrect to say that the people of Northern Ireland have lesser rights on things like that. Quite simply, we all have the same rights, but we have different constitutional positions.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Baroness; I think she has made my point for me. The reality is that the European Union decides the issues in Northern Ireland. No young person—none of the 15 young people who wrote that letter—will have any say on their future, unless the Windsor Framework and the protocol change. Every time we raise these debates, all I want is to get the Government to recognise—although they were not directly involved in doing this so we also want to get the Opposition to recognise—that the Windsor Framework and the protocol are unsustainable if we care about the United Kingdom and about democracy.
I thank your Lordships again for taking an interest. I am sure that I and other Peers will find other ways of raising this issue. It will not go away, because it is about democracy and the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(3) Any peerage claim is to be made to His Majesty in Council.(4) A claim under this section must be made in accordance with such rules as His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe. (5) Section 3 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of appeals to His Majesty in Council) applies to a claim under this section as it applies to an appeal to His Majesty in Council from a court.(6) The Judicial Committee may require an applicant to give such security for the costs of the proceedings as the Judicial Committee may direct.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the future of claims to a hereditary peerage as originally drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 93 would put the process for dealing with peerage claims into the hands of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Bill was published, many people noted that Clause 2 abolishes the role of the House of Lords in peerage claims, expressly including claims to peerages that are in abeyance. However, it does not replace that system; in other words, the clause abolishes but does not also replace.
I appreciate that, three weeks ago in this Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, whom I am delighted to see here, appeared somewhat surprised to find that there are many Peers who do not sit in your Lordships’ House but are Peers none the less. That is a fact. We must have an effective system in place to determine peerage claims.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill set out how this process is to work in future. I will quote them, because this is short and clear:
“As well as removing the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, the Bill also abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in hereditary peerage claims. The intention is that: a. any complex or disputed peerage claims that would have otherwise been considered by the House of Lords will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833; and b. claimants to a peerage of Ireland will no longer petition the House of Lords to confirm their succession”.
Lord Northbrook
“(7) The Judicial Committee must seek the advice of and evidence from Garter King of Arms (for England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the Lord Lyon (for Scotland) when determining peerage claims under this section.”
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, my probing Amendment 93A would safeguard the current process of proving succession to a peerage. According to the College of Arms:
“The Royal Warrant of 2004 requires that a person wishing to be recognised as a Peer prove succession to the relevant dignity, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Garter King of Arms provides a ruling to the Crown on whether each claim has been satisfactorily made out”.
For more complex claims, the current process is that
“advice should be sought from an officer of the College of Arms in London, the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh (for Peerages of Scotland), or a solicitor”.
As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar said, claims are currently made
“by submission of a formal Petition to the House of Lords and Statutory Declaration to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice via the Crown Office, made on behalf of the claimant by a suitable person”.
According to the Ministry of Justice guidance notes, the current situation is that the Lord Chancellor is charged with keeping a Roll of the Peerage to ensure that, as far as possible, records of successions of peerages are kept in good order. The point of my amendment is to ensure that, when the House of Lords is removed from any role in determining new peerages, the existing roles of the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon are fully taken into account, as well as the procedures for proving succession to a peerage. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, this Bill is about hereditary Peers. My worry is that if the Ministry of Justice is to be in sole charge of approving hereditary peerage claims, further legislation could be brought in to abolish hereditary peerages in their entirety.
Finally, as a non-lawyer, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General how contested peerage claims are going to be dealt with in detail? Do they go to the lower courts first and up through that process? Why is the final Court of Appeal going to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? From my layman’s understanding, the committee mainly handles cases from our overseas territories and certain Commonwealth countries. Why is it not to be the Supreme Court? I have read that judgments of the Judicial Committee are not binding on UK courts, having only persuasive authority. Does this not add an unnecessary extra layer of complexity to this issue, and could this not be resolved by just replacing the Judicial Committee with the Supreme Court?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I really think we are giving these matters a significance they do not deserve. I absolutely do not think that the Privy Council should be made responsible for the adjudication. That might have been the case in 1833 and while we had hereditary Peers dominant in this House, but the truth is that the possession of a hereditary peerage will confer no right to sit in this House of Lords. That being so, what is the purpose of this amendment? There is often dispute between prospective Peers: one says that they are entitled and the other says that they are. Well, that is a matter for them. It is a sort of boundary dispute. It would perhaps be a proper matter for a county court—or if, for that matter, there was a financial settlement of some substance, maybe for the High Court—but the idea that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Supreme Court should be involved in a quarrel between two people claiming to be a hereditary Peer is complete nonsense.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seemed to indicate that hereditary Peers may not exist here in the House of Lords in the future, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, indicated something similar. At what point will there be no hereditary Peers in the House of Lords, and how might that situation—which I would strongly support—come about?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s Amendment 93. I totally disagree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham on this. It is a matter of significant importance to families, whether it is about a peerage or about entitlement with regard to due process around issues such as inheritance and legitimate descent.
For my part, I exceeded the 100 days set out in the Tony Wedgwood Benn renouncement Act, which was passed in 1963. Post 1963, you could not renounce further than 100 days unless you had clarity within that 100 days about renouncing. I was a Minister in another place at the time. I therefore went through six years of process to satisfy my family, and indeed my grandfather and father, that the rightful inheritor of the title and a small estate was indeed one of three boys, I being the man at the time—there were two young boys. I say to my noble friend that I felt duty-bound to go through that process and, on behalf of the family, to come to the right conclusion. My experience lasted some six years of detailed work: it went through the Tunbridge Wells Magistrates’ Court and the Family Division and ultimately came here.
I think my noble friend is trying to seek clarity and find a Bill in which that clarity can be made available to disputes outside this Chamber as well as, as currently, to people within it. In many respects, the burden of proof is very significant. In my case it was the first use of DNA, to refute the paternity of my half-brother’s fourth wife’s child and then to finally render his son illegitimate from the fifth wife because of a bigamous marriage and forgery of the divorce papers. I simply put that in the context of the difficulties that some of these cases lead to.
The monarch’s role, while symbolic, still carries weight in recognising or confirming legitimacy of hereditary peerages and of a claim. Each case is unique. The process can be lengthy and complex, especially where controversy and legal disputes apply. I believe the Moynihan case underscores the intricate nature of peerage succession and the legal challenges that can arise concerning legitimacy and inheritance. As I say, that is not primarily because of a seat in the House of Lords: it is a matter of family. I think everybody here and their families want to make sure that they know who their parents are and that, especially if some great act has been done by a forebear, it is recognised in the family and there is due process. Given that peerages are granted ultimately through the symbolic role of the Crown, I think that the simple amendment that my noble friend has put forward, and the Lord Chancellor’s response, will be very helpful in this context.
The process outlined by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, drawing on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, is right. My only concern is that the cost of the process should never deter to prove a legitimate case being heard. I represented myself in court at each stage of the process. That is not always possible for people who genuinely want to make sure that the right outcome is determined.
I am sure the Attorney-General will give us clarity as to the process to be followed. If there is the opportunity and necessity for an amendment to be made, it could well be made through this Bill in order to clarify the position moving forward, without any relevance whatever to a seat in the House of Lords.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will say two things very quickly. The first is on Amendment 93A. The Lord Lyon is also a King of Arms, so that ought to be added after “the Lord Lyon”. He is in fact King of Arms for Scotland, whereas Garter is not. His jurisdiction is north of the border, over the Scottish titles.
The second thing is that I have a feeling that, sometime in the past, titles could be heritable property in Scotland and have come under some of those laws there, so if someone does something it probably has to be dealt with by law courts and not in the very casual way that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is talking about. I am afraid I disagree with him. This amendment, which may need to be modified, goes some way to clarifying the situation that it ought to go here—otherwise, I think we will have a mess in the courts later. I thoroughly approve of Amendment 93 and, with a slight caveat, of Amendment 93A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Northbrook, for their amendments, and all noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments seek to provide how peerage claims in the future will be dealt with. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out, from his own personal experience, there is a need for clarity. In the Government’s view, with respect, that will not be achieved through these amendments, but I hope that this address to your Lordships can provide the clarity that is sought.
I start by providing a brief overview of the Government’s intention for peerage claims, starting with the process as it currently is, as was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. As many of your Lordships will know, a peerage claim is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of a title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, it is the case that the claimant of a peerage is the undisputed heir and is entered on to the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor. However, as the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, illustrates, if the Lord Chancellor refuses—for example, if the claim to title is not immediately made out or the claim is disputed or complex—a person can pursue it by way of petition to the Crown.
Currently, these petitions are referred to the House of Lords to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. As a matter of high principle, since the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerages and membership of your Lordships’ House, the Government consider that it is no longer appropriate for hereditary peerage claims to be considered by your Lordships’ House. Clause 2 therefore removes such jurisdiction from this House.
In future, the intention is that any complex or disputed peerage claims, which would have been referred by the Crown to this House, will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee’s constitutional role is to advise the sovereign, so it is ideally placed to consider these matters. In answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, the position will be precisely the same in respect of disputed Irish peerages.
With those principles in mind, I turn to the amendments. Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, seeks to set out a new process for making claims for hereditary peerages by replicating the provisions of the House of Lords Reform Bill of 2012, which, your Lordships will remember, did not proceed. There are two reasons why we do not consider it appropriate.
The first reason is that it seeks to provide an express power to refer claims to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, that power already exists in Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, which provides that His Majesty may refer matters to the Judicial Committee for consideration and advice. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, where it is unnecessary to duplicate legislative provisions, we should avoid doing so.
The second reason is that the amendment is based on disproportionality, as it would require all peerage claims to be made to His Majesty in Council, rather than through the filter of a first application to the Lord Chancellor, as the royal warrant provides for. It would place a duty on the Judicial Committee to deal with all peerage claims, including straightforward claims that are not currently considered by your Lordships House.
The amendment would therefore result in a significant increase in claims already considered beyond the stage of consideration by the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage. It would lead to an increase in work of the already hard-working—indeed, overworked —Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Based on recent figures, the amendment would result in the Judicial Committee having to consider an average of 12 claims per year. By contrast, the House of Lords has considered only seven complex claims over the course of the last 50 years. It would be a very considerable increase in business for the Judicial Committee, and, with respect, it would be disproportionate to place that burden upon it.
Amendment 93A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, seeks to place a duty on the Judicial Committee to
“seek the advice of and evidence from Garter King of Arms … and the Lord Lyon … when determining peerage claims”.
The royal warrant of 2004 established the Roll of the Peerage, which is prepared in consultation with Garter and the Lord Lyon. The warrant also outlines the first stage in the peerage claims process, which is an application to the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage, which the Lord Chancellor may refuse or accept. Following such an application, advice is sought from the Garter King of Arms or the Lord Lyon, who prepare a report on the claim and make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord’s amendment would place a statutory requirement on Garter or the Lord Lyon to advise the Judicial Committee. However, that is not necessary, because the Judicial Committee will already have access to the reports of the Kings of Arms during any consideration of the claim. For those reasons, the amendment would place what we consider to be an unnecessary and duplicate burden on the Kings of Arms.
I hope that I have answered already the noble Lord’s question as to why it would be appropriate for these matters, where they are disputed, to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rather than to the Supreme Court. In essence, it is because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, constitutionally, the appropriate place for the monarch to refer disputed claims. Therefore, we consider it to be the appropriate body, not the Supreme Court.
In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as to when the last hereditary Peer will be able to sit in your Lordships’ House, as your Lordships will know, the aim of the Bill is that that will happen at the end of the Session after Royal Assent.
Grateful as we are for the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, we respectfully ask that they consider withdrawing them.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his detailed and considered reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will of course withdraw the amendment. Before I do, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for answering the question about the Irish peerages. I will look very carefully at what he said in response to the rest.
I had a wry smile when the noble and learned Lord said that it is unnecessary to duplicate legislation. I started off with that aim as well and I ended up with the Pet Abduction Act 2024. It is all very well when you are faced with a lawyer across the Dispatch Box here, but when you are faced with a group from the House of Commons with the wind in their sails, it may be more difficult to hold to that. I used to tell people that the statute book was not a form of semaphore to send signals, but that often fell on deaf ears.
I am grateful for the support I had en passant from my noble friend Lord Northbrook. Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham. There is an interesting—by which commercial lawyers normally mean expensive—legal question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, as to whether a peerage is a matter of property or not. Quite beyond that, we do not want these cases starting in the county court and going all the way up. We need somewhere to resolve them, and the Privy Council is the obvious place. It resolves other sorts of disputes to do with universities and things like that. It would be a bit of fun for it, in between all the other difficult jurisdictional work that it does. My noble friend Lord Moynihan gave a good example of a disputed peerage.
My answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who was obviously satisfied with the Attorney-General’s answer, because she has now gone—was going to be slightly different. I was going to encourage the noble Baroness to stay for groups 5 and 7, when the questions of commencement and when we will have the last hereditary Peer will be before the Committee. I was not going to give an answer now, so that she would stay and listen to the debates on those groups. I hope that she comes back.
On a more serious note, if there are discussions, as we have heard, through the usual channels on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, the answer given might be that it will be when one of the current hereditary Peers in the House reaches the ripe old age of 120. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Review: impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of Lords at discharging its core functions.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will speak to my other amendments in this group. I very much hope that we will be able to amend this Bill so that the House of Lords, as it carries on from it, is a great deal better at improving and reforming itself, and being a reflective, ever-improving place than the House of Lords has been in the 30 or so years that I have been here. This amendment is a small attempt to add some drive and mechanism for self-improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, within this group, I will refer to my Amendments 96 and 99. Amendment 96 focuses on four connected aspects, including the quality of legislative and government scrutiny that the House of Lords provides; the relationship between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament; the balance of power between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament; and the example that the Parliament of the United Kingdom sets to the Commonwealth, member states of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world.
Within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act, a duty would be imposed on the Secretary of State to produce a detailed review of how these four aspects have been affected. Central to them is
“the quality of legislative and government scrutiny that the House of Lords provides”,
as expressed in proposed new subsection (b). Your Lordships will agree that it is that attribute of our present House which must continue within a reformed House, where its quality function takes precedent and to which membership composition is a secondary and subservient consideration.
Thereby, this consideration connects to the three other aspects, beginning with the relationship between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament. As indicated in proposed new subsection (a), within a reformed House, the sustained quality of function of the present House has to enable the same constructive working relationship as that at present between this House as a revising Chamber of Parliament and the Government in another place, the House of Commons.
This is not so much to challenge or contradict legislation proposed by the Government, but instead constantly and competently to revise and improve whatever that proposed legislation might be. Consequently, as a by-product and in the light of the huge number of amendments accepted every year, cross-party solidarity and resolve develop among parliamentarians, both here and in another place, to help the Government of the day to improve their initial versions of proposed legislation.
That in turn reflects an achievable balance of power between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament, which is referred to by proposed new subsection (c). Within the United Kingdom, such balance is dependent on the democratic forces of local authorities and regional Parliaments, and the opportunity for those energies to contribute towards a desirable balance of power between the Westminster national government and Parliament.
This opportunity comes as a result of a reformed Westminster second Chamber to which the majority of its temporal Members, serving for 15 years, might be indirectly or directly elected, coming to the House with the authority of parliamentarians representing all parts of the United Kingdom and therefore assisting the balance between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament—exactly in the necessary direction implied by Quintin Hogg when, in view of our voting system allowing large government majorities for one political party or another, he coined the term “elective dictatorship” as he warned of the risk within the United Kingdom of political imbalance and extremes. Here, I am very grateful to his son, my noble friend Lord Hailsham, for his support for Amendment 96 and, in particular, of its proposed new subsection (c), in favour of an improved balance between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament.
Proposed new subsection (d) highlights the example that the United Kingdom Parliament sets to the Commonwealth, the 46 member states of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world, in which regard your Lordships will agree that if a reformed second Chamber can strengthen democracy in the United Kingdom, by example it may be able to do so elsewhere as well.
Amendment 99 also refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out a review within 12 months of the new Act, yet it also outlines various other proposed amendments already debated. All these have in common that they seek to sustain the present quality of function of this House, where numbers in a reformed House are capped at 620, with 20 Lords spiritual and 600 temporal Members, of whom the majority are of political Members, with the government and opposition parties having exactly the same numbers, and where, through HOLAC, the numbers of non-political Cross-Benchers are increased.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 101, which calls for a constitutional conference. We have spent much time debating what the composition of your Lordships’ House should be in the future, but I am afraid that we have the cart before the horse: before you decide on how you would like to reconstitute the membership of your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what they are going to do.
This is the problem that we have at the moment: the Bill does not address the question of the powers of your Lordships’ House. However, until you have decided on the powers of your Lordships’ House, you cannot really decide how you are going to change the membership. At that point, you will get completely bogged down, because you will not then be able to tell people who are elected to your Lordships’ House that they cannot vote at Second Reading, that there is a limit on the amount of ping-pong you can play with the elected House, and so forth.
I sincerely hope that the Government will institute a constitutional conference on the relative powers, because that will be a vexed and difficult issue. I am sure that the other place rather revels in the fact that this House is so illegitimate. Since it can claim that it is legitimate and has a democratic mandate, it can basically overrule what happens in your Lordships’ House, which is reduced to the role of a revising Chamber. On the other hand, the Government have to decide what this House really does. I suggest that it would be very sensible to set up a constitutional conference to work on the relative powers, which could be introduced to your Lordships’ House as it stands today. The Government could then see the results of the decisions made by a constitutional conference on what should and should not happen in this House with the existing membership before they perhaps decide to change the membership overall.
The composition of your Lordships’ House is an extremely complicated issue as well, because there are many different facets to your Lordships’ House, not least the Cross Benches, which play a very valuable role in the deliberations of your Lordships’ House in revising legislation. On the other hand, it is very difficult to see how you can combine the Cross Benches with an elected House; I do not see how you elect independent Members. The political parties would have something to say about elections. It is complicated. Perhaps you could appoint Members of the Cross Benches and have other Members elected, but this is all quite difficult. What happens to the Lords spiritual? Are we to continue to have them in this House if it becomes elected?
Many different issues are raised on the whole question of the composition of your Lordships’ House, not least the issue of elections. Are you going to have elections on the same day as you have a general election for the other place, or at a different time? Do you want the composition of this House politically to be different from that of the House of Commons, or do you want it to be the same?
There are many different issues that come up on this, and it needs a lot of deliberation and cross-party discussions, and we have to give serious thought to how this will all work out in the future. Unless we do think through all this, we will get ourselves into a terrible muddle. It is no good people just getting up saying, “I believe in an elected House”, as the Prime Minister did the other day. You have to think through the ramifications of having an elected House. Would an elected House challenge the House of Commons? I suspect it would. Therefore, you come back to the relative powers of each House.
We are in grave danger of getting into a complete muddle over all this. If we want clear thinking into the future, we will have to work these things out with cross-party consensus, and through constitutional conferences, to arrive at some form of system for the future. This is nothing other than very complicated; we should be giving serious thought to it now.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 95 and 96 to which I have put my name. In doing so, I have basically three concerns. First, I have a strong suspicion that the Government will bring no further proposal for the reform of the House of Lords during the lifetime of this Parliament. Secondly, related to that, a review would act as a spur, so there is just a chance that a review might encourage them to do so. Thirdly, I think the public should know that many of us in this House favour a much more radical solution to the composition and powers of this House. I am one of those: I believe in an elected Chamber.
That takes me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I entirely agree with him that fundamental to any debate should be the powers of this House, because from a decision on the powers stems the decision as to composition. If you are content with being but a revising Chamber, then a process very similar to what we now have is perfectly appropriate. But if, as I believe, you need to have a Chamber which has powers commensurate with the House of Commons and can face the House of Commons down in appropriate cases, then it has got to be elected. I have always believed that, to stand against the elective dictatorship of which my father wrote and spoke, we need an elected House with powers similar to those in the House of Commons.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I very largely agree with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. My Amendment 101A is slightly more ambitious—perhaps too ambitious for the taste of your Lordships this evening. We have debated this Bill for four full days now. I do not wish to test the patience of noble Lords much further, but I do think we are missing an opportunity here.
I rather share the view that, as far as the Government are concerned, this will be it in relation to this House. I do not see them moving to any further stage, certainly not in this Parliament. All the evidence, for instance, on an age restriction in this House suggests that it is slightly eclipsed by the average age of the most recent appointments made by the Government to this House.
However, it is worth pausing to consider that, since two fundamental issues have arisen with implications for the constitution—those being devolution and Brexit—we have had no deep thought as to how we now wish this country to be governed. In fact, the last royal commission, which is what my amendment calls for, was instigated in 1969: Lord Crowther started it, and it was finished by Lord Kilbrandon in 1973. It was a contentious commission. Two people resiled from signing it, and people did not agree on it, but at least there was a debate about how we wished this country to be governed.
We have seen a lot of things happen without there being any thorough or clear thought as to whether they are the sort of things that we want to happen. We have seen an expansion in the Welsh Parliament; just recently, they have extended the number of Members. We have seen debates within the Scottish Parliament as to whether you can be a Member of Parliament as well as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. We have had debates about there being no English Parliament when all the component parts of the United Kingdom now have their own Assemblies.
We have heard how in Northern Ireland there has been paralysis over recent years. Do we want to look again at the d’Hondt process? Do we want to look again at how we select the First Minister in Northern Ireland? Do we want to look again at how political parties can self-designate in Northern Ireland?
We have seen recently moves to reorganise local government in England without much debate—a move to unitaries, getting rid of a lot of our district authorities. I personally support that in most cases, but we have had no consideration as to what that means for the representation of the voters in being represented properly.
In the House of Lords itself, in the last Parliament—my noble friend Lord Forsyth was very quick on this the whole time—we had Ministers in this Parliament who were unpaid. I would suggest that, in a democracy, when we have a bicameral system of legislation, to have unpaid Ministers performing the roles of Ministers in the other House is absolutely unacceptable. I very much hope that the Treasury Bench will confirm that there are no Ministers currently doing this unpaid. Incidentally, as we have heard, the majority of Ministers who were doing it unpaid when we on this side of the House were in Government were actually, yes, hereditary Peers.
When I first came to this House, which was not very long ago, the Lord Speaker told me that he thought the difference between the other place and this place was that in the other place you get up and you tell people, and in this place you get up and you ask people. In that spirit, I would ask whether your Lordships agree that what we are doing with this Bill is just spraying a bit of body paint on to a rotting carcass. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace: I think the British public are in a febrile state and do not feel that they are being properly represented. We need to do something about that as a matter of urgency, and what better way than to have a root and branch royal commission to look at how this country is governed and should be governed, how the balance of power is distributed around the country, and whether we need a bicameral system of government going forward?
If we do not need that, so be it; we will have to have some other check on the Executive. If we do, and I suspect that most of your Lordships would think that we do, then we need to decide what the powers of that second body—us, your Lordships’ House, whatever we want to call it—need to be.
I personally believe—I have changed my mind on this—that what we are seeing with this Bill is a move towards a completely different second Chamber. I would not be at all surprised if, in the next decade-plus, we do have an elected senate. Maybe that is a good thing; I do not know if it is a good thing or not. What I do know is that we need to have the debate, on all the issues that I have mentioned. I do not believe that this Bill should become an Act until we have thoroughly thought through the implications of what we are doing.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. This short debate has ranged very widely, and I would like to bring it back to something a little narrower. Before I do so, I will say—as I said at an earlier stage in Committee—that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham: we are headed in the direction of a democratically elected upper Chamber. Quite frankly, a House that is wholly appointed in the 21st century, in a democracy, is a ridiculous thing; it has no legitimacy. This is where we will have to go. I do not say that because I am avid for change but because it is an inevitable and logical consequence of the process that we are engaged in today.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I disagree with all these amendments because I believe they are based on a misconception that the change we are discussing is a fundamental change. It is not; it is a tidying-up measure. It does not affect the powers of the Lords or our relationship with the Commons, far less our relationship with the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments which say we need to institute a new process to evaluate the impact on all these broader things is totally pointless, because it will have virtually zero influence on all those things.
There are two areas of further change which we have spent lots of time debating which have nothing to do directly with the Bill. One has to do with how the current House of Lords improves the way it operates, whether that is by having a retirement age, participation levels or all the other things that we have spent a lot of time discussing that the Government have in their manifesto. We can possibly discuss how to achieve it in the next group.
The second question, which is certainly beyond the purview of this Bill, has to do with whether you have long-term democratic reform. Clearly, from these Benches we think we should. Clearly, the House of Commons in the coalition Government thought by a massive majority that we should. That is not a revolutionary change which has not been discussed and where MPs have not thought about the issues which concern the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so much. They were discussed and a conclusion was reached—but whether the Bill proceeded had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the principle behind it.
So these amendments would get us nowhere. As for a constitutional conference, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, in the past they have reached no conclusion, because you do not reach a total consensus on this. If anybody thinks that, frankly, they have not been listening at all, and anybody who hears the words “constitutional royal commission” thinks “years of delay”—and whatever we need, we do not need that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords.
The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s.
Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong.
I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?”
I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates.
My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament.
I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not think the Arsenal kick-off is quite yet; I have another half an hour or so.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments from the first group. We had an extensive debate about that, so I am not going to go through it. But, in relation to the challenge that the noble Lord has just made, we have had a transition for over 25 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, there were attempts to make fundamental changes, but they all hit the fundamental problem of “Don’t do anything until you do everything”. That is the problem here, and it is not going to be resolved by royal commissions and other bodies. I have seen those royal commissions, and they tend to mean long grass and do not build consensus.
The amendments in this group relate to types of formal review. In some cases, they would make commencement of the substantive provisions in the Bill conditional on such a review. I note that the Committee has discussed similar amendments in previous groups. Given that, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating the words of my noble friend the Attorney-General: these amendments are unnecessary and disproportionate.
Amendments 95, 96, 98, 99 and 102 are concerned with the imposition of a duty to review the impact of the Bill following implementation. I stress again that the impact of the Bill is straightforward—no one can see it as complicated—and post-legislative scrutiny would likely not yield any more meaningful conclusions.
Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the Secretary of State, within two years of this Act being passed and annually thereafter, to publish
“a report on the impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of Lords”
at discharging its functions. As my noble friend the Attorney-General pointed out last week on a similar amendment to this, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, placing a duty on the Government to undertake reviews until the end of time feels disproportionate in these circumstances. There is also an implication that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better able than life Peers to help the House to carry out its functions. As I said on a previous Committee day, who are we judging here? Are we judging life Peers as being inferior, not able or not committed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is empirical. The data show that our hereditary colleagues currently come here more often and participate more. That is not a slight on those of us who are here as life Peers, but does the Deputy Leader not accept that the data show the valuable contribution that they make to the work of this House?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not think the data show what the noble Lord is suggesting. It is a marginal change—1% or 2%. The simple fact is that, when you start implying that some noble Lords are better than others, I am afraid you are implying that life Peers somehow make less of a contribution. They do not, and that does not help us in terms of what we are trying to achieve here. The idea that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better does not help the House to carry out its functions. It does a disservice to the contribution made by life Peers on all sides of the Chamber, particularly our Cross-Bench Peers.
It is important to point out that there was no legislative scrutiny following the passage of the 1999 Act, despite that legislation removing a significantly higher number of Members from your Lordships’ House. This was because it was not necessary. The House continued—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The reason why a certain number of hereditary Peers were kept here in your Lordships’ House was to perform that post-legislative scrutiny. Again, the Deputy Leader has suggested that this is the ending of a transitional phase, removing those who were kept here to try to keep the last Labour Government on their toes about reform. If this is the end of a transition, can the Deputy Leader tell us what we are transitioning to?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said, the Leader of the House and others have acknowledged that what we did in 1999 was remove the hereditary principle. As my noble friend Lord Grocott has said on a number of occasions, that was not simply a mechanism to ensure transition; it was about saying to the Labour Government, “You won’t get your business through if you don’t keep these hereditaries here”. That was the reality, as my noble friend made clear in previous debates.
We have had over 25 years since the removal of the hereditary principle while maintaining 92. The Opposition had the opportunity on many occasions to support my noble friend so that those hereditary Peers could have stayed, but no: we ended up electing further hereditary Peers who were much younger and had no record of experience—as the noble Lord suggested—prior to their election by a very small number of people. The reality is that we are trying to defend the indefensible. We have a clear commitment in our manifesto.
By the way, there was no legislative scrutiny—I will come on to other commitments in our manifesto—but it is disingenuous of noble Lords to say that somehow they do not believe what we are saying. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I assure noble Lords that we will commit to that.
Amendment 96 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would place a duty on the Government within 12 months of the Bill coming into force to produce a report dealing with its effects, including on devolved Governments, the Commonwealth, members of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world. As I have said, the impact of the Bill is very clear and I submit that, contrary to our propensity to talk about ourselves, the implications of the Bill are unlikely to be felt substantively throughout the international community.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—I have said this many times before—that the Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said in previous debates, the Government are keen to engage on how best to implement the other manifesto commitments by building consensus and understanding the needs of this House. She will come forward with proposals for doing this in a structured way.
Noble Lords are also aware of our longer-term commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. In light of this comment, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am not going to be shouted down. I did not hear the Minister specifically address Amendment 101 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. It effectively offers the Front Bench a choice either to force this through simply on weight of numbers or for a limited period of six months to delay the implementation of the Bill for the purpose of a constitutional convention, with a view to achieving as much consensus as possible. Does the Minister wish to comment before he concludes his speech?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thought I had commented on it at the beginning. The simple fact is that the idea that you do not do anything until you do everything is not acceptable. It has not worked. We have introduced a staged process of reform. This is the first part of that reform—clearly stated in our manifesto—and we will move on to other aspects of our manifesto commitment in consultation with Members of this House. I ask that the Member withdraws the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on their other amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his response. I was here for the previous Bill, of course, and can tell the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that his Front Bench was a great deal more convincing then about the inevitability of rapid progress to further change than his Front Bench is being now. We have heard nothing of ideas or substance from the Front Bench. It feels to me, just like it has on every previous occasion, that this will not happen.
Under those circumstances, something like Amendment 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is crucial. The noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, have explored mechanisms that may be combined quite well with Amendment 11 to make it more effective. Something along those lines is what this House should send back to the other place so that the momentum for change is reinforced and, as far as possible, this House retains a degree of initiative in pushing that forward.
We need change, as the speakers to this group of amendments have said. We need that progress towards change to be public and believable, and we are not getting it at the moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Birmingham City Council
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, until my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled his Urgent Question yesterday, we had heard nothing from this Government on Birmingham City Council’s bin fiasco. Birmingham, the UK’s second city, the pride of industrial Britain, is now reduced to piles of rotting waste and rats. We are seeing scenes akin to those I remember as a child in the strike-plagued 1970s.
Almost every area is suffering from overflowing bins, with 17,000 tonnes of waste said to be clogging up pavements across the city. Depots have been blocked by picket lines, delaying contingency collection vehicles from reaching the streets and, all the while, uncollected waste is increasing at nearly 900 tonnes a day. The threat of a public health emergency hangs over the city, a threat that demands urgent and decisive action. What are the Government doing to address this terrible situation? For 20 long days, nothing. When the residents of Birmingham needed a solution, the Government stayed silent.
This is a problem of the council’s own making; for too long, waste services have been a problem in the city. My son was at Birmingham University eight years ago and the recycling waste was not collected on his street for several months despite numerous calls to the council, and it has got worse. The flawed deal with Unite back in 2017, which then led to legal action over pay, built the foundation on which Birmingham’s mountain of rubbish sits today. Despite the Labour-run council knowing about this since then, it has failed to address the issue. That is why Birmingham residents find themselves with piles of waste in the streets.
What are this Government going to do to address these failings? On these Benches we are calling for a COBRA-led response—a co-ordinated effort across local and national government, harnessing the experience of emergency services and public health officials, where every resource is summoned to resolve this nightmare. Will the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had within the department to resolve this emergency?
On these Benches, we are calling on the Government to engage with the private sector service providers to help clear up the mess and save residents from a disruptive bin strike with no end in sight. We need action today. I urge Ministers to pick up the phone to those complicit in holding Birmingham hostage to end this strike and restore cleanliness to their streets.
Unite has called on central government to make hundreds of millions of pounds available to the council. If that something the Minister is considering? What is more, is a council tax increase of 7.8% a clear breach of the Prime Minister’s pledge to freeze council tax? Does asking the residents of Birmingham to pay more while getting less show that Birmingham council has failed?
Now that Birmingham has declared a major incident, leading to the availability of new mechanisms, can the Minister confirm that she will meet with the council to ensure that those mechanisms are considered? We understand that the declaration should mean that the council will increase the availability of street cleansing and fly-tipping removal, but can the Minister confirm how many additional vehicles will be deployed in the coming days and what the department is doing to ensure that bin lorries can safely enter and exit the council’s waste depots? It is shameful, and a national embarrassment, that one of our nation’s great cities finds itself in such a bleak situation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, 17,000 tonnes of uncollected household waste creating mountainous heaps of stinking rubbish on the streets of Birmingham is simply unacceptable—particularly in terms of the public health hazard that is created. As a result, and after three weeks of a strike by bin workers, the city has declared a major incident. It is expected that this will allow the council to implement a contingency plan to clear the waste mountain from the streets. So my first question to the Minister is: how confident are the Government that the waste will be cleared before the Easter holidays? Given that this emergency action has been taken because of the growing public health risk, how sure are the Government that diseases caused by a combination of rotting rubbish and rats can be prevented? My third question is: what are the public health risks faced by residents living in those parts of Birmingham where the rubbish mountains are worst?
The very challenging financial strictures facing the city council are of course one cause of this dire situation. The apparent failure to tackle the long-standing equal pay claims from women employed by the council is another contributory factor. Equal pay claims have been a challenge for councils across the country. Some resolve the problem by outsourcing: others, including my own council, resolved the absolutely unfair pay systems over 20 years ago by working with unions to agree a single pay spine and settling women’s claims for lost pay. |If that was 20 years ago, can the Minister explain how it is that, in Birmingham, equal pay claims were allowed to fester for so long?
I raise the significance of equal pay as the council cites it as a fundamental reason for not being able to settle the current dispute. Can the Minister comment on whether Birmingham City Council has finally resolved historic equal pay claims and whether existing pay for all employees is on a fair footing?
It is of course right to acknowledge that Birmingham has had a reduction in its core funding of 40% or more, which has left the spending level per person 19% lower than 14 years ago. In more deprived areas, the loss per person is nearer to 26%, according to a report from the IFS. Clearly, the huge loss of funding has put the council into very difficult circumstances. Eleventh-hour additional funding from the previous Government helped forestall the financial collapse of the city council. As a consequence, very difficult decisions have had to be made. Can the Minister confirm that major change to support council finances is needed and will come?
Finally, it has to be asked whether Birmingham City Council is too large. It serves 1.2 million people, which makes it the largest local government authority in Europe—double the size of the next largest in this country. With just 101 councillors, each one serves over 12,000 people. Can the Minister explain how community representation can occur under these circumstances? The reason for the question is that the different needs and aspirations in a council of that size are hard to meet when elected representation is on that scale. It seems likely to have contributed to the problems now being faced. Does the Minister agree?
Birmingham is a great city. It needs the support of the Government and Opposition in aiding a recovery. I look forward to the questions asked being answered, either now or in writing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. I will elaborate on the Statement a little but, before I do, the tone taken by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, showed no acceptance of the 14 years of funding withdrawal from local government. That is at the heart of this problem.
I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention at Birmingham City Council, which was part of the reason for this Statement in the other place, and on issues affecting the waste service, following the Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution in the other place yesterday. This Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged to fix the foundations of local government and we have set about doing that with some energy. 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, they must be legal and they must be decent. Commissioners have been working with Birmingham City Council for the last 18 months to support the council in its recovery. Their latest report on that progress was published by the Government yesterday and lands at a point of acute difficulty for residents in Birmingham. As we know, the ongoing waste dispute is resulting in rubbish piling up in the streets, so I will also take this opportunity to give the latest update on the status of that dispute.
The council has taken important initial steps forward on its improvement journey and is working constructively with commissioners. It has made significant progress in addressing historic equal pay issues and fixing the foundations of its governance. The leader, Councillor Cotton, and his group are taking difficult decisions to get the council back on track. The commissioners have recognised that, and that his calm leadership through stormy waters is definitely moving the council forward. The new managing director, Joanne Roney CBE, has brought a steady hand and is beginning to make permanent senior appointments that will contribute to that much-needed stabilisation. The council has also achieved a breakthrough by achieving an agreement to settle the outstanding claims to end the ongoing equal pay saga. It has also set a reimplementation strategy for the Oracle system, which was part of the issue there.
That improvement is encouraging, but deep challenges remain. In the short term, commissioner oversight and close supervision will still be required to maintain the momentum that has started to build. There is a difficult road ahead on the key aspects of the best value regime—governance and culture, financial management and service delivery—because substantial risks threaten the journey to reform and recovery.
As we all know, there is a live industrial action in waste services involving one of the three unions recognised at the council. The Government will support the leader and his team at Birmingham, directly and through the commissioners, to move the council on from these historic issues. That includes an increase in core spending power of up to 9.8%, or £131 million, for 2025-26, including £39.3 million of new one-off recovery grant, illustrating the Government’s commitment to correcting the unfairness in the funding system; and an “in principle” agreement to the exceptional financial support, totalling £1.24 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of council tax, but actually it was his Government who signed off a 10% council tax increase in Birmingham last year. That was more than the council put up its council tax by this year.
Councils deliver more than 800 services and make a huge difference, but it is accepted that for many, the most visible and universal service is the collection and disposal of household waste. Many noble Lords know that the current industrial action in the city is causing misery and disruption to local residents. I am not going to make light of that; I know how difficult it is for them.
From the outset, we want to be clear that statutory intervention is led by commissioners and Ministers, who cannot legally intervene in the industrial action. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has been in regular contact with the leadership of the council throughout as it has sought to find a resolution which, importantly, maintains the reforms needed to build a sustainable council and which also returns waste collection to a normal functioning service. This is causing public health risks to the city’s most vulnerable and deprived and, as a result, yesterday Birmingham declared a major incident to give it the mechanisms to better manage the impact on residents. I support that decision, and this Government will back local leaders to bring the situation back under control in the weeks to come.
The Government will not hesitate to provide support in any way that Birmingham’s leaders need and, as Parliament would expect, a meeting with the leadership of the council, the commissioners and other key local partners is taking place to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect public health. I spoke to Councillor Cotton myself this afternoon to ask him if there is anything further he wants us to do.
It is in the interests of all parties—and, most importantly, the people at the heart of this, the residents of Birmingham—that the industrial action is brought to a close in a meaningful and sustainable way as soon as possible, and we encourage all parties to redouble their efforts, get round the table and find that resolution. Councillor Cotton confirmed that live negotiations are ongoing; that work is still continuing. To do this, any deal to end industrial action must maintain value for money and ensure a fit-for-purpose waste service, without creating or storing up liabilities for the future. All parties recognise that Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation for years. 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. This situation simply cannot continue, and that is what needs resolving, and resolving urgently. Our Government will support the council in its journey to creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that the residents of Birmingham deserve. We will support the council to resolve historic issues and to continue to establish the leadership, governance and culture that will transform the services and deliver good-quality public services for the people of Birmingham.
On the noble Lord’s specific questions and his comment about failing to address the issue, there have been consistent meetings and discussions with Birmingham throughout this situation to make sure that we give it any support it needs, but it is right that it should be Birmingham City Council’s decision to enable co-ordination between public sector partners on the ground in Birmingham. That is why it has declared this major incident—to ensure that public safety and health is restored. While the situation in Birmingham is clearly very serious and deteriorating, the declaration of a major incident is a well-established mechanism for ensuring that public sector partners can co-ordinate locally to deliver a resolution.
The noble Lord asked whether COBRA would be convened. COBRA is used for significant crises which require a collective government response, co-ordinated at the centre by the Cabinet Office. We are in regular contact with Birmingham City Council, and local leaders are confident at the moment that they can manage the situation. Should this change, we stand ready to respond to any ask for support.
The noble Lord asked how many bin lorries are active. He will be aware that one of the issues was the blocking, as part of the strike action, of bin lorries’ entrance to and exit from the depot. We are hoping that that can be resolved as the negotiations go forward. I cannot tell him off the top of my head exactly how many bin lorries are able to operate, but I shall come back to him in writing on that.
The noble Baroness asked how confident we are that waste will be cleared before Easter. We all want to see this situation resolved as quickly as possible. I hope that, with the good will of all parties, and given that they are still in negotiations with each other, we will be able to resolve this dispute sooner rather than later.
The noble Lord asked about sending in staff or giving extra money to help clear up the rubbish, and whether we would send in private contractors to do that job. As you all know, I am a firm believer in devolution and in letting local people sort the issues out locally. It is right that the response is led by the area’s key public sector partners. We are in regular contact with those local leaders, and negotiations are still open.
On the issues relating to public health, the director for public health at Birmingham City Council is part of the response, and the impact assessment of the strike is closely monitoring the situation on the ground and will continue to do so. The UK Health Security Agency met with the director for public health yesterday and will remain in close contact to ensure that all parties are well informed.
Issues were raised about equal pay, and of course, the noble Baroness is right to say that we needed to resolve those. They were entrenched and affected some of the female workers in Birmingham enormously. We have to give credit to Birmingham for working its way through what has been a very long and hard process. I have gone through one of these equal pay settlements myself. The trade unions have been involved in resolving most of the issues; this is that last part of that process, and the matter is still outstanding. As I say, we urge everyone concerned to get round the table and resolve this now.
I hope that that has answered all the questions. The noble Baroness asked about the size of the council. We are going through a process with all councils of discussing how we take things forward, but it is important that, at the moment, we leave the commissioners and local leadership in Birmingham to do the work they need to do to turn the council around. That work is progressing well; there is still a lot more to do but a lot has been done already, so I hope we will get to where we need to be.
The noble Baroness also referred, rightly, to funding cuts. Birmingham City Council received the sharpest cuts of any council in the country. Because it is the biggest council in the country, the ripple effect that we all felt in local government from the horrendous hollowing out under the last Government hit Birmingham like a tsunami, so I do not think the Benches opposite have much right to criticise what went on there.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: I failed to declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge that the seeds of this dispute were sown during the period when the Conservative and Liberal party coalition ran the city of Birmingham? Many of the financial problems facing the city over the years were caused by the Conservative and Liberal Government in power in Westminster. On this dispute, will my noble friend acknowledge that the city council has made a perfectly reasonable offer to the union? Among the solutions put forward by the city were the following: NVQ training for alternative work for those affected by the dispute; voluntary redundancy on enhanced terms for those who decline to accept the new terms; six months’ pay protection for the 17 people directly affected by the council’s proposals; fully funded LGV driving training with a guaranteed role at the end for any staff who wish to take it up; and a one-off payment, as an alternative to redundancy, to buy out contracted entitlements. Does my noble friend agree that these are fair and reasonable terms that the union concerned should accept, and that it should reflect on the damage being done to its fellow citizens as well as to the image of Britain’s second city?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right; Birmingham is a proud city with proud people, and I know that they are embarrassed at what they are seeing. It is time that this is resolved. The vast majority of the workforce of the waste service have agreed a way forward by one route or another, whether that is taking voluntary redundancy, accepting new ways of working or many of the other routes that my noble friend mentioned. This now comes down to a small number of people who have not accepted them. That is where the dispute lies. A city such as Birmingham cannot grind to a halt in such a circumstance. We urge everybody to get back around the table and resolve the issues for this small number of remaining members of the workforce, and then we can restore Birmingham to the rightful place it holds as our second city and the pride of the Midlands.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency—Sutton Coldfield—for 27 years, so I know a little about the area.
I am not sure that I agree with the Minister or my noble friend Lord Snape—he used to be my pair, so I call him my noble friend just to keep in with old things. I am not sure they can simply ride away from this and say that the origins of this and the problem are all down to the last Conservative Government. That argument does not stand up. The real problem we need to tackle is not in going back. We have an instant problem now in Birmingham. As we all know, we have the problem of the streets and the rest. We need most urgently to find a solution to that, not to go into all the details over years and years.
Two points come out of this debate. First, surely the Government have a prime responsibility to preserve public health. That has not happened over the last month. They have failed dismally in that duty, not to this House or the House of Commons but to the citizens of Birmingham. They have let them down, and we are still to find out the final result of that negligence. The Government are now saying, as they should, whether they agree with the action of the pickets in stopping trucks removing the mounds of rubbish that have scarred the city and attracted rats and other vermin —we have not imagined this; it is an actuality—and that kind of action and that kind of defeat cannot be justified to the public. The people stopping the lorries are causing immense damage to individuals.
The people who matter most in this are the citizens of Birmingham, and they have been let down. That is the fact of the matter. The Minister should be turning her mind to how the Government will urgently help to get this straight. It is not a matter of having committees and long discussions. We now need urgency and urgent action. I hope the Minister can tell us of some of that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly agree that the people of Birmingham are at the heart of this issue. They are first in our thoughts. I agree that urgent action is necessary. That is why I spoke with the leader of Birmingham City Council today to see whether there was anything further we could do to support them. He believes that the way to resolve this is to get around the table as quickly as possible, and that is just what he aims to do.
On the noble Lord’s comments on how the situation arose in the first place, there had been serious financial and governance failings. Birmingham City Council issued a Section 114 notice, which effectively says that the council does not have control of its finances, in September 2023. It did so due to accepting a £760 million liability that arose from those equal pay claims, along with in-year budget deficits that arose from the Oracle IT system. It has been working through a very intense programme of activity to put those issues right. It has not been easy for the leadership of Birmingham City Council; nobody goes into local government to cut services or make things less easy for their residents. It has been doing that with the commissioners, who are working very well with the council and have produced a frank and honest report. There is a copy in the Library if any noble Lord wants to look at it. I agree that preserving public health is vital. That is why the director of public health in Birmingham and the UK Health Security Agency regularly review what is going on there, to make sure that everything is done that can be to ensure that the public health situation does not deteriorate any further.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to serious financial failings in Birmingham, and the Statement admits that:
“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”.
Does the Minister agree that this situation might not have arisen had it not been for the abolition, just over a decade ago, of the Audit Commission, which had a role in delivering best value as well as formal audit responsibilities? Taking Birmingham as an example, might the Government consider whether that decision was wise and whether something needs to be done to improve long-term audit of local authorities in England?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the premise of the noble Lord’s question. The audit situation right across local government, not just in Birmingham, has deteriorated beyond what should be tenable. The audit function assures the public in an area that their council is what I described: legal, decent and fit for purpose. Unfortunately, due to the changes to the audit regime, that is not the case. I was horrified to find that whole of government accounts have been qualified because of a lack of assurance on the local government audit situation. We cannot allow that to continue. The Government are looking at what we need to do about audit. We will bring forward something in the English devolution Bill that covers the audit regime, and we will attempt to make it better than it is now. It is so important that the public can have confidence in the money spent not just by their Government but by local government as well. We will aim to make sure that that is the case. It has been a bee in my bonnet for a long time, and I hope to put it right.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to Front-Bench questions, the Minister said that councils must “provide essential statutory services”. One of those statutory duties for councils, under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, is to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. Birmingham Council is planning to slash library opening hours, cutting them by a third and potentially closing seven libraries in a city where 46% of children are living in poverty and 43% of residents live in neighbourhoods that are part of the poorest 10% in the country. People need libraries for children to do their homework, old people to go somewhere warm and for everyone to access digital services. Does the Minister believe that, with these new cuts to libraries, Birmingham is going to meet its statutory responsibilities, given that it is actually under central government supervision?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know of my fondness for libraries, because I am sure she has heard me talk about them before in the Chamber. As I said earlier, nobody stands for election as a councillor to cut any services, particularly libraries, which we know are so important to people.
It is important for residents of Birmingham that their council gets back on a safe and stable financial footing. I add that the potential of Birmingham to contribute to the growth mission and regeneration is enormous. Once the commissioners working with the leadership of the council have stabilised the finances, it will be able to support services. I am very pleased that it has not actually cut all its libraries, as we have seen in some other areas, as the noble Baroness will be very well aware, but the closure of any library is a sadness. Once our Birmingham colleagues have stabilised the finances—and with the growth agenda that they will be able to participate in—I am sure that they will want to restore that service as soon as they can.
We should not underestimate the importance of libraries. I practically grew up in my mobile library; it was a great comfort to me. They are important for all the reasons that the noble Baroness said. I hope that Birmingham will be able to restore them as quickly as possible.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly talks about the second report of the commissioners, which was published yesterday. There is a very telling paragraph that the House needs to be aware of, and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to it. It says that
“the Council, currently, still lacks the ability and self-awareness to deliver timely, sustainable reform at the pace required without substantial support and direction”.
In the light of that, the Minister’s response of “leave the commissioners alone” does not stand up. The commissioners are saying that further substantial reform is required. What substantial reform and extra support are the Government now thinking of? What is the timescale for that, in the light of the commissioners saying that it is required?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think the commissioners are referring to the fact that each time a report is due, the Government can consider whether it is time to take the commissioners’ support out. The commissioners were trying to indicate that they do not feel that the council is ready for their support to be withdrawn at this stage.
The report highlights the progress made by the council so far. It notes the leadership of Councillor Cotton and Joanne Roney, and the hard work of many diligent members of staff in the council. In the circumstance we find ourselves in with Birmingham, that can often be overlooked. Many of the staff there are working tirelessly to make sure that the council delivers for its residents.
The report also sets out that the journey to recovery and financial stability is far from over, as the noble Lord says, and has been heavily dependent on the input, guidance and advice of the commissioner team so far. The indication in the line that the noble Lord quoted is that the council continues to need that commissioner support. We agree with that as a Government, and we will continue to support the leader and his team in Birmingham directly and through the commissioners to move the council on from the historical issues with a fair resolution. The way to do this is to continue on the journey that the council is on and make sure that they all stabilise the council so that it will be able to deliver for its residents long into the future.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I am a member of Unite the Union. I urge my fellow brothers and sisters to keep on talking.
Under the previous Government, many councils of all colours went bankrupt, including Birmingham Council. The root cause of all this was the historical underfunding by the previous Government, as the noble Lord has pointed out, for the past 14 years. Is the historical underfunding of Birmingham Council still the problem there?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Like many noble Lords in this House, he has direct experience of leading a council, so he has felt the pain of funding cuts, as have all of us who have been in that position. We have made some changes to the local government funding formula this year to make sure that funding goes where it is needed most, instead of following a historical pattern of allocations. We will make further changes to that. As noble Lords will be aware, we are going into the spending review process now, which is why we could issue only one-year settlements, but we will provide multiyear funding settlements, which will make a difference to the stability for local government funding and make sure that the greater quantum of funding goes to the areas where it is most needed, of which Birmingham is certainly one.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what the Minister said about restoring audit, because the best value commissioners’ report is an astonishing catalogue of failures in governance and culture—deep rooted, long term and all pervasive. What systems does the Minister envisage to allow the new unitaries that the Government are creating to start out with strong cultures and governance, rather than fall into the despairing place that Birmingham finds itself?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I described my commitment to audit in an answer to an earlier question. Audit is part of that, and so is the collaboration that local government is now pulling together to drive the route towards these new unitary authorities, which will serve them well as they go through the process. We absolutely have to make sure that audit function is in place and sound, because that is the public’s reassurance that their council is not only financially stable but making good use of public money. That is why it should be considered as part of the English devolution Bill.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I take my noble friend back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Snape—who, like me, represented the Borough of Sandwell—and the root cause of this problem: the failure of the Conservative/Lib Dem alliance running Birmingham City Council to deal with the equal pay issue. Sandwell Council borrowed the money from central government, paid it back within seven years and resolved the problem. That is the fundamental root, and my noble friend may wish to remind the Opposition Benches of that. With regard to picketing at the depots, has she had the opportunity to remind the chief constable of the West Midlands of the code of practice under the trade union and labour relations Act for the conduct of picketing, and is she satisfied that West Midlands Police are enforcing the law?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that reminder that there is not a one-party state in Birmingham; other councils have been involved in failing to tackle the equal pay issue over many years. He is quite right to say that for most councils this was a very thorny issue. It came with a great deal of negotiation needed, and quite often with a huge price tag attached. So I do not underestimate the difficulty in dealing with it, but many other councils bit the bullet and got on with it. That was not tackled in Birmingham.
I have not had any conversations with the chief constable of West Midlands Police, but I am sure that the declaration of the major incident will make sure that all agencies in Birmingham are brought in to help support the council and the commissioners and to help to restore what we all want to see: the people of Birmingham being able to get their pride in their city back, and the commissioners and the leadership of the council being able to continue to move Birmingham forward to be the city we all know it can be for the future, right at the heart of the Midlands, delivering growth for the country and being the kind of wonderful place that it is for the people of Birmingham to continue to live in.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 103 has generated quite a lot of interest across the House. It is a very simple and easy to understand amendment. It effectively activates what would then be an Act of Parliament on Royal Assent.
Colleagues may not be surprised that I tabled it after the Opposition, most unusually, moved the adjournment of the House, all as part of their attempt to frustrate the legitimate work of a newly elected Government. They won that vote by a majority smaller than the number of hereditary Peers who voted with them. We saw men who sit in the House by virtue of appointment by an earlier Prime Minister—something which they now seem to decry about today’s Prime Minister—stop a newly elected Government continuing with its business that day.
That adjournment may not have been on this Bill, but it was behaviour which is not normally witnessed in your Lordships’ House and which we had hoped would not be seen again. However, I see from the Guardian that something similar has been suggested for trying to stop the Renters’ Rights Bill. I hope that the Guardian is wrong.
With regard to this Bill, we have had to sit through a tsunami of amendments that have no relevance to the purpose of the content of the Bill and which everyone knows will never be part of the Act. It may well be that the clerks said that such amendments were acceptable, but that does not mean that they had to be tabled. Just because you can do something, it does not mean that you should do something. I was particularly surprised to find that His Majesty’s Opposition had tabled amendments on future appointments to this House, which they know have got nothing to do with the Bill and will not find their way into the Act. The mover of that amendment is shaking his head. I think he knows jolly well that they are not to do with the hereditaries and that they will not find their way into this Act. That is not the action of a responsible Opposition.
There are also amendments, some perfectly within scope, tabled by hereditary Peers without the customary signal of a declaration of interest. The Code of Conduct says that we should all act solely in terms of the public interest and act and take decisions impartially. Peers
“should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves”,
and should
“conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the House of Lords”.
Importantly, the Code of Conduct says that, when speaking, any financial interest must be declared where relevant to the matter under discussion. Given that the privilege of membership of this House affects every hereditary Peer and that they have an interest in whether they are to lose their ability to be here, I would have thought that, even if it was only a perceived interest, they would have declared it when speaking or tabling any amendments.
In relation to our excellent hereditary colleagues in this House, I remind them that, contrary to what has been said, this has not been rushed and they have had enough notice about their future. When I was on the Opposition Benches, I spoke to many Bills from my noble friend Lord Grocott, and he and I warned your Lordships’ House, particularly the then Government, that failure to accept his Bill, which would simply have stopped new entrants, would mean that more drastic action was likely to follow in due course.
That would have been heard by all the hereditaries at that time and would have been known by any who joined since. Indeed, had we stopped the by-elections a decade ago, I am confident that this Bill would not be before us today, and those of our colleagues present at that time would have been able to see out their lives as full Members of this House, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier amendment today. So those who will be leaving as a result of this Bill, and who were here a decade ago, really have only the Conservatives to blame for what is happening now.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, first, as the strictures tell us and for anyone who does not know, I declare that I am a hereditary Peer.
I support this pair of amendments—Amendments 103 and 112—which may come as a surprise to some noble Lords. I do so for two reasons. The first is that, although I would like to stay on, as some amendments have kindly hinted, the Bill is going through. The hereditaries have now been waiting on the parliamentary equivalent of death row for months, so perhaps it is time just to get on with it. Secondly, I have been thinking about how we hereditaries can render one last service to this House on our way out and, perhaps, give our ejection some greater meaning, or even honour. Then it hit me: the noble Baroness’s amendment might be improved by adding, perhaps on Report, a consequential amendment that states that each so-called hereditary being ejected takes with them one Peer who does not attend, or who does attend but does not participate.
Some noble Lords, on this April Fools’ Day, might think that this is merely a light-hearted suggestion to lighten the mood after some rather sharp words earlier, but I invite the Committee to consider the benefits of such an amendment. Not only would it accelerate the end of the hereditary element—something which, with apologies to Hamlet, some Peers feel is
“a consummation
Devoutly to be wished”—
but it would, and not before time, cull the free-riders, improve the external perception of the House and even reduce costs.
There are plenty of such non-participating Peers from which to choose. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that every hereditary should take two such companions with them to the scaffold. More gallows humour perhaps, but I cannot help noticing that, if adopted, this would go a long way to reducing the size of the House closer to that of the Commons, which many in this House support. It would also enhance the reputation for Member participation and significantly increase productivity per capita—an issue which I know the Government are very committed to those outside Parliament achieving.
Although I have no realistic expectation that this suggestion will be accepted today, I have spoken previously on the need to address participation. My Amendment 63 —which proposed that, after this Bill becomes an Act, an effective group be convened, with a short timescale, to receive evidence, define a benchmark and get it implemented—received fulsome cross-party support. Perhaps the findings of this group should be called “second-degree burns”, in honour of the previous Burns report—I’m here all week; settle down, please—which the House warmly supported but then signally failed to act on.
Where I am very serious is that, if my suggested consequential amendment to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is not supported, after the Bill is passed and the hereditaries are sent into oblivion, I hope that the House itself will at last insist on achieving such reform. We shall see. That would, at least in part, give some validity to the much-quoted promise that the end of the so-called hereditaries would coincide with a fuller reform of this House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I think I have a sense of humour, but I did not find the noble Lord’s speech at all amusing. What is being proposed here is a nasty proposition. It is being proposed in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but she did not actually speak to it but rather complained about the process by which this Bill has been scrutinised by the House. Let us spell it out here: this is a very nasty proposition that every single hereditary should be forced out of this House the moment the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The mask has slipped, because it is all about numbers. It is about reducing the number of Conservatives in this House; Conservatives who have a duty to provide opposition to the Government and to seek to warn them where we believe they are making errors or mistakes —and, my goodness me, that becomes an increasingly onerous task. The noble Baroness talked about degrouping. I am very sad that the amendment has not been grouped with that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who has a rather more satisfactory and sensitive approach.
The noble Baroness mentioned in her speech that she convened the group that has done so much to bring forward iterative improvements to this House, led by the late Lord Cormack and my noble friend Lord Norton. The whole point of that group and its success is based on the fact that it achieves consensus, works in harmony and works across the House. To have an amendment that suggests that the hereditary Peers, who have given years of public service to this House, should be trashed the moment the Bill gets Royal Assent is an outrageous proposition.
It shows scant regard to how this House operates. There are no fewer than five Deputy Speakers who are hereditary Peers. When the Bill is passed, what is going to happen? Where are these Deputy Speakers going to be found from, just like that, on a timescale that remains unknown? It means that the Convenor of the Cross Benches would disappear just like that, and the Cross Benches obviously have a great job to do in this House.
Then there are the committees. I said I would speak only once on this Bill, to the first amendment, but this amendment is so nasty and unpleasant that I feel I should point out some of the practical consequences. I mentioned in my speech at the beginning of this process the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who serves on my committee and is a really able Member. Are committees to be denuded of their participation just like that? Think of the practical considerations.
All that may not exude much sympathy, but I think all of us in this House are pretty fed up with reading in the newspapers how we get £371 a day just for turning up. The fact is that Members on the Front Bench are unpaid, and people are meant to meet their other costs out of this, which include research facilities and perhaps overnight accommodation for people coming from elsewhere. What of those hereditary Peers who have staffing or other obligations? Are they suddenly to be cut off, without any concern? I find it astonishing that the noble Baroness, chairing this group as she does, should come forward with such a divisive amendment.
When I spoke at the beginning, I suggested that there was a way forward—to reach a consensus in the House that looked at the requirements of the House, the role played by the hereditaries and their necessity in enabling the Opposition, Cross-Benchers and others to hold the Government to account. Wise Governments like to be held to account because that is what prevents them making serious mistakes.
As the House of Commons fails to do its job, this House becomes ever more important. We need an arrangement here. I understand that the Government have a clear mandate. The hereditary principle is over and a number of the hereditaries will leave the House, but let us do this in a way that does not poison the atmosphere in this House and does not prevent us carrying out our proper duties.
We can do without amendments like this. My noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, when we get to it, is the sort of approach I would much prefer to see coming from the noble Baroness than the amendment she has just moved.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, I feel almost ashamed to speak to this amendment, as doing so gives it credibility. I speak in sadness, as I cannot believe that any Member of this House would wish ill on our hereditary colleagues, as is suggested by the wording of this amendment. Its timing certainly favours booting out our colleagues and friends as soon as possible—it is nasty and brutal.
Our colleagues and their forebears have served this House for generations. I shall never forget the former Lord Montagu of Beaulieu telling me on his last day here that it was his duty. He could hardly speak but he thought it was his duty to attend whenever he was able. Duty was his motivation and it remains the motivation of our hereditary friends. Yet the noble Baroness wants to drive them out in this manner. I hope that all noble Lords will take this amendment and the ill intent behind it very seriously and, if there is a Division at another stage, vote against it to show respect and gratitude for what our colleagues and their ancestors have given to this House, and indeed our country, over centuries.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an effort not to speak for the previous several hours, but flesh and blood can take only so much. I have listened to virtually all the debates that have taken place, including numerous Second Reading debates that took place on the first group of amendments today, with Members, kindly enough, pointing out to us that they had not had the opportunity to speak so far. We are on the fifth day in Committee and they did not speak on Second Reading, but they thought it was their duty to, in effect, give us a Second Reading speech today. They have since departed. I am sorry that they seem to have all gone somewhere else now and their interest in the Bill seems to have finished.
On my noble friend’s amendment, it is difficult for me not to repeat things. We are talking about 88 people who have known for a quarter of a century—if they know anything about these things or follow them—that this House has decided that the hereditary principle should not apply to legislators. Now, they are apparently faced with some gross injustice that will cause them great pain. As I have pointed out before, I have been summarily thrown out of Parliament, as has the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I got over it pretty quickly, to be honest.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Yes, we were both thrown out by the electorate, but we were given some resource to enable us to deal with staffing and other issues. We were supported in that process.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The decision to remove the hereditaries means they are being removed by the electorate —the electorate that elected a Labour Government with this manifesto commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not know, because I departed rather before he did, that there was none of the kind of soft landings in quite that degree when I lost, but I do not complain about that. Man up. Man up is about the right phrase for a men-only section of the House of Lords. Plenty of notice is being given. My noble friend says it should be on Royal Assent. I think someone suggested it should be at the end of the Parliament in four and a half or five years, or at the end of this Session. When is the end of this Session? We do not know. It could be in a few weeks.
The fact is that there will be a date, there will be plenty of time to address it, and no great injustice is being done by following the result of a general election. Great kindness and support are being shown. We have all said, or many of us have said, that there are some very able hereditaries, but the most amusing of the comments I have heard is, “How will we cope with all this talent being lost to the House? Maybe we should set up a review after a year to see what damage has been done to our democracy by these people departing”.
I simply say to that, “Don’t bother”. We have done it; we had a review. Twenty-five years ago, 668—I think that was the figure—hereditary Peers were removed. We are talking about 87 now. We have had a template to see the damage that results from the departure of hereditary Peers. As far as I can make out, in the period since the 668 departed, the earth has still revolved around the sun in much the same way as it did before. The British people have taken it all very calmly and in their stride. I do not recall any demonstrations against it. I have not heard a tangible argument from anyone specifically spelling out what damage was done to the work of this House by the departure of that group of people. I have nothing against them. There may have been an Einstein among them as far as I am concerned, but this House is bigger than it will be when a certain number of people depart for whatever reason. It is suggested that if you throw a group of people out like this, all sorts of other groups will feel threatened. Well, if they do feel threatened, they will get around 25 years’ notice if precedent is anything to go by.
I want to put one final test—I slightly realise the risks I am taking by speaking at all—to people, mainly those on the other Benches. I have to take it at face value, although I have my doubts, that they are desperate for further reform of this House. They are urging the Government at the earliest possible opportunity to bring forward a series of reforms. I have never noticed them arguing for that other than in the present circumstances, but that is their argument, to which I say that if I were advising the Government now, in the light of this debate—where a very narrow, well-publicised, well-rehearsed, well-anticipated reform is taking place and has allowed this Committee over five long days and bits of nights to discuss everything from attendance to statutory commissions, the role of the Bishops and everything under the sun—my advice to them would be to think twice before they bring in any piece of reform legislation whatever because all this stuff was able to be debated this time, apparently legitimately, so they would be running a grave risk to their legislative programme if the same amount of time was given to any further reforms.
The real test will be this. Let us get on with the rest of this Committee. Let us get on with Report. I think three days should be the absolute maximum after five days in Committee.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
It is two and a half days.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Leader says two and a half days, and I always bow to her suggestions. And let us put some perspective into this. The image we present through the discussions that we have been, and are still, having—that this is the single most important issue facing this House this Session, and that we need to debate it at huge length, which we do not give to every other subject that comes along—is not the best of public relations as far as this House is concerned. I shall not be tempted to get up again, but I did want to inject a bit of realism into our debate.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the nature of this amendment has been clearly set out by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe. My noble friend Lord Forsyth explained what the amendment actually does, and he made us confront the reality of what the amendment purports to do. I heard my noble friend Lady Seccombe say that she was ashamed to have to speak to the amendment, because it is so brutal—and brutal it is.
Therefore, one wonders why this amendment has been brought forward by the noble Baroness. The reason she gave was an odd one. The reason she gave was that, when the House adjourned at 10 pm, as it customarily does, light descended on her and she just had to put down this amendment.
I have not been here as long as the noble Baroness, but my understanding is that the House generally adjourns at 10 pm unless there is an arrangement between the usual channels for a later sitting. I understand that there was no such arrangement and that was why the House came to an end and adjourned at 10 pm. In any event, the idea that that is a reason to go further than the Government’s own Bill in respect of the date by which the hereditaries leave this place is, as a reason, not a reason at all. It is a fig leaf. There must be else something behind it. One wonders, what is that something else? I look forward, as I always do, to the words of the Leader, but especially on this, because this amendment contravenes, in terms, the Bill. It goes well beyond the Bill.
We have been hearing this evening that, when the Front Bench responds to amendments, the Minister should respond to the amendment and not to the debate. Therefore, I look forward to the Leader saying in unequivocal terms that she is opposed to this amendment. Otherwise, there will be a concern that—in a series of groups where very few people have spoken, and very few amendments have been put forward, from the government Benches—this amendment and this speech have been singled out above all else to be made and to be said.
We of course oppose this amendment, for the reasons already set out. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who spoke in this House on one of the various Private Members’ Bills put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I see that he got in early with the Government’s excuse as to why they cannot do second-stage reform: because it will be so amended and will take up so much time. That was very useful. I do that when I am in court. If I think that point is going to come up in six months’ time, I just put down a “sleeper”, as I call it. That was a good, old-fashioned sleeper as an excuse for no second-stage reform. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who said in your Lordships’ House on 3 December 2021:
“We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.]
What has changed to make the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, not content with her own Government’s Bill but seek to accelerate the expulsion of the hereditaries? There seems to be no reason for it at all. I do hope that the Leader of the House will join me in our forthright opposition to this amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. This is the first of three groups of amendments on the commencement. I take the point that it may have been more helpful to debate them together, but we have three different groups, so we will debate them in that way. I will speak to both the amendment and the debate, which may be helpful. My noble friend spoke to her amendment but also about some of the motivation behind it. It seems to me that she felt a little goaded, if I am correct in my interpretation, by how the Bill has been handled across the House, and perhaps some of the talk about delaying its implementation meant that she felt obliged to put the other side of the coin.
I know how noble Lords feel about leaving. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, drew a distinction between leaving here and leaving the other place rather unceremoniously when we were voted out by friends and neighbours and colleagues. He shares that distinction with my noble friend here and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. It is not a pleasant feeling; it is emotionally difficult. One day you have a role and the next day you do not, and you do not know when it is coming. The thing about this Bill and the way it is proposed by the Government is that we do know when it is coming.
As many of us have been saying for several years now, the failure of the last Government to accept the Grocott Bill has brought us to where we are today, despite the efforts I made to ensure that my party helped that Bill’s passage through both Houses to get it on the statute books. So, I understand the point, and we tried to avoid it, but we are where we are now. I wrote in the House magazine four or five years ago that, if we failed to accept the Grocott Bill, this would be a consequence. It is not one we took with relish, but it is where we are because of what has happened previously.
I reject that it is nasty and brutal. It is not intended in that way. In fact, one of the things my noble friend said, although she spoke to the amendment, was that she did not want Royal Assent to coincide with the end of the Session. She would rather have Royal Assent and then get to the end of the Session, but, if the Bill took too long, they would coincide. I think the balance we have in the legislation is the right way forward.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as wonderful, smart and experienced as he may be, does not speak for the Government. He will be aware of that. I am encouraged, because I have heard so much agreement over the five days. My noble friend Lady Anderson has counted 39 hours of debate in Committee and at Second Reading and we have been greatly encouraged by the support there has been for proposals on participation, particularly, and on retirement. That was not there before we had those discussions. That is of enormous assistance in taking these issues forward and, although it may not have felt like it at times during long debates, I am grateful to those who have brought through those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is worried that, with the departure of hereditary Peers, this House will no longer effectively scrutinise the Government. I have absolute confidence that this House will not shirk its duty and will maintain the ability to hold Governments to account. He will know from his time in government that it is not just the opposition parties who hold the Government to account. It is a matter for the whole House, including, as he will have found sometimes, Members from the Government’s own party. So this Government are confident that it will not affect the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation or hold the Government to account.
Having said all that, the effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave your Lordships’ House on Royal Assent. That is beyond what is currently proposed in the Bill. She made the point about ensuring that there is time for the House to make arrangements for those who serve on committees, on the Woolsack and in other roles in your Lordships’ House, and we think that the sudden departure on Royal Assent would be a step too far. The approach we have taken in this legislation is consistent with the approach that was taken in 1999. That is fair and reasonable. I am grateful to my noble friend, because she has allowed me the opportunity to make some points. She made the point that, if the House wants to move on to the other issues, we need to get on with this Bill and see it through—but I can confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to bring forward anything similar to that, but rather to leave the effective date of the legislation as it is now, so I respectfully request that my noble friend withdraws her amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for addressing the debate as well as just the amendment. Will she assure us that that is the general policy of the Government? Otherwise, I am going to have to draft three times as many amendments for the schools Bill to make sure that all the points I want to raise are covered on paper.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry: I am not really sure I understand the point that the noble Lord is making at all. I am not sure it is relevant at this point anyway.
Lord Lucas (Con)
We were taken to task in an earlier group, and answers were given just to the amendment rather than to the width of the discussion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I was trying to aid the Committee, but I think the noble Lord would agree that in previous debates the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was congratulated on her ingenuity but that had very little to do with the Bill. It is entirely appropriate for Ministers to respond in the way that they wish, and to speak to the amendment is the usual way forward. I have broadened my comments out to be helpful to the Committee, but we would normally expect the Committee to speak to the amendment and the Minister to do the same.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I particularly welcome not just the support but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which was even more ingenious than some of the others that we have heard. Maybe we can make a little list of which two of us should go out with the hereditaries.
My noble friend the Leader of the House clearly understood exactly what I was saying, which is: if we are not careful then this will be on Royal Assent, because if we go much further then it will be at the end of the Session. That was the point of this debate. I think colleagues know I am not ill-minded or—what were the other words used about me?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am slightly surprised to be called that, I have to say.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I did not say that the noble Baroness was nasty and brutal. I said her amendment was nasty and brutal.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
“Hairs”, “fine” and “splitting” come to mind.
There are two major issues: we have been warned about having these long debates and about amendments that, frankly, are never going to be accepted, because even if they go through here on opposition votes then they will be overturned down there. So what are we doing debating Motions that are never going to be in the Bill and probably should never have been tabled?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this goes wider than the Bill. That is the second or third time that we have heard the doctrine that this House must never propose or suggest anything that the other House might disagree with. This is the revising Chamber and, even if we fear that the House of Commons might disagree with what we propose, in our wisdom we have every right, on every Bill, to ask the House of Commons to think again.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but I remember him saying the opposite from this Dispatch Box.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Surely the issue is good advice. If I am trying to say anything, it is: can we get on with it? That is really what the amendment is about. We should not be tabling amendments that are out of scope. I am sorry to do this in front of the clerks but, honestly, some of them are not pertinent to the issue. The advice is: can we please get on with this?
I think my noble friend will want to take forward the wider suggestion, but she is clearly not going to do that until we have moved on this issue. So to all those who want more done, my advice—and this was the purpose of the amendment—is not to leave it too long, or it will be the end of the Session by the time this comes in.
I would have loved to have had this amendment debated with the rest. I kept getting draft lists that said “degroup”, and people have clearly been asked to degroup their amendments. I do not know why mine fell out, but I would have much preferred the whole of the idea of commencement to be in one group. Still, frankly, if we are going to have amendments tabled saying that it should go to the end of the Parliament five years on, then of course it must be possible to say, “Are there other dates as well?”
So the purpose of the amendment was to say two things. First, please can we not go on until basically the end of the Session before this comes in? Otherwise, the hereditaries will have no notice of it and the House will have no time to make adjustments. Secondly, can we get it done for the sake of this House moving on? We heard earlier about constitutional amendments. That was in the Conservative manifesto for the election before last, but it never happened. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quite often used to ask about it at Question Time: “Where is this promised thing?” It did not happen.
I have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. What has changed since 2021 is that at that point it had not been accepted. In 2021, we said, “Can we please just stop the by-elections and keep the people in?” That was rejected by the noble Lord’s Government. That is what changed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
(a) issued a document for public consultation containing proposals for ensuring the membership of the House of Lords is more representative of the regions and nations, and(b) published a draft Bill giving effect to those changes.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes the commencement of the Bill subject to the prior issuance of a consultation document and draft legislation on the representation of the regions and nations in the House of Lords. It makes subsection (4) otiose.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we come now to a group of amendments which deal with second-stage reform. I feel it incumbent on me, therefore, to start by tackling directly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in the last group where he suggested— I hope I am not misrepresenting him—that noble Lords on this side of the House who advocated for further reform beyond this Bill were either acting in bad faith or at least inconsistently in that they had not been calling for that reform before today.
I think that charge is easily understood. I can entirely understand why the noble Lord might reach that view, and it needs to be answered before we go ahead. The only answer I can offer is to some extent a repeat of remarks I made on an earlier day in Committee that, when you change one part of a complicated machine, other parts of it also change and need to be re-evaluated. As I have said perhaps twice, to turn this House into an entirely appointed House makes it ridiculous in the 21st century in a democracy.
Therefore, one is forced to think by this measure—there is nothing wrong with it—about what the future might be, and we may reach different views. However, it does not mean to say that because we have not articulated them before we are behaving inconsistently or in bad faith. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are taking these issues very seriously.
I shall speak only briefly to my own amendment and allow other noble Lords to speak to their amendments in this group. My own is in some ways the simplest. It looks forward to what we refer to as second-stage reform but really there are three stages of reform in the programme indicated by the Lord Privy Seal: this Bill; the other measures in the Labour Party manifesto which I regard as being under the heading “immediate” but she believes should follow, presumably, reasonably soon; and then the further commitment, which is clearly separate in time in the manifesto, to consult on altering the House of Lords so as to give more representation to the regions and nations.
My amendment simply says that the Bill should proceed only when the Government have issued that consultation document. They are committed to consultation and, presumably, the consultation begins formally with a consultation document that would contain options and questions and so forth—it is not necessarily a firm commitment—together with a draft Bill, which might have alternative sections in it reflecting that consultation document. It would show earnest on the part of the Front Bench that there really is going to be change, that the rest of their manifesto is not a hollow shell and that we are not simply going to be left, as so many of us suspect and fear, with the reform in this Bill and then nothing else to follow.
This is opening a door for the Front Bench to say, “Yes, we are serious about our manifesto, and we believe that these documents should be issued and be there for public scrutiny. The process will start—not conclude—before the Bill commences”. This is a very modest ask of the Government and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal would find herself able to show her earnest by agreeing to it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 104 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 105 to 110 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 109 in this group, which follows on rather nicely from my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment but takes it a stage further. The Labour manifesto of 2024 stated:
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.
Hence I am, in this probing amendment, reminding the House of the proposals of the royal commission of 2000, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, in its paragraphs 33 to 38, to receive the opinions of the Government and other noble Lords on them.
The commission recommended that
“a new second chamber of around 550 members should be made up as follows: A significant minority of the members of the new second chamber should be ‘regional members’ chosen on a basis which reflects the balance of political opinion within each of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. The regional electorates should have a voice in the selection of members of the new second chamber. Those members in turn will provide a voice for the nations and regions. Other members should be appointed on the nomination of a genuinely independent Appointments Commission with a remit to create a second chamber which was broadly representative of British society and possessed all the other characteristics mentioned above. The Appointments Commission should be responsible for maintaining the proportion of … ‘Cross Benchers’ … in the new second chamber at around 20 per cent … Among the politically-affiliated members, the Appointments Commission would be required to secure an overall political balance matching the political opinion of the country as a whole, as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election. To facilitate a smooth transition to the new arrangements, the existing life peers should become members of the new second chamber”.
The commission then stated that
“party patronage and Prime Ministerial control of the size and balance of the second chamber should cease. The Appointments Commission should ensure that the new second chamber is broadly representative of British society. It should make early progress towards achieving gender balance and proportionate representation … of minority ethnic groups. In order to identify appropriate candidates for the second chamber it should maintain contacts with vocational, professional, cultural, sporting and other bodies. It should publish criteria for appointment to the chamber and invite nominations from the widest possible range of sources”.
The royal commission then presented
“three possible models for the selection of the regional members”.
Each model had the support of different members of the commission. Model A proposed
“a total of 65 regional members, chosen at the time of each general election by a system of ‘complementary’ election. Votes cast for party candidates in each constituency … would be accumulated at regional level. The parties would secure the number of regional members for each region proportional to their shares of the vote in that region, drawing the names from a previously published party list. Regional members would be selected for one-third of the regions at each general election”.
Model B proposed
“a total of 87 regional members, elected at the time of each European Parliament election”.
Clearly, the timing of this would have to be refined, now that we have left the EU. It said:
“One-third of the regions would choose their regional members at each election. The system of election used for electing members”
suggested was the same as was previously
“used for electing the United Kingdom’s members of the European Parliament, although a majority of those supporting this model would prefer a ‘partially open’ list system of proportional representation (PR)”
where electors have the option to vote for the candidate or the party.
Model C proposed a much larger
“total of 195 regional members elected by thirds, using a ‘partially open’ list system of PR, at the time of each European Parliament election”.
Again, this timing would have to be refined.
Model B had the support of a substantial majority of the commission, which proposed that to
“promote continuity and a longer-term perspective, all members (under all three models) should serve for three electoral cycles or 15-year terms, with the possibility of being reappointed for a further period of up to 15 years at the discretion of the Appointments Commission”.
With regard to religious faith, a substantial majority of the commission recommended a
“broadening and deepening of religious representation in the second chamber. Representation should be extended beyond the Church of England to embrace other Christian denominations … and representatives of other faiths”.
In conclusion, the report states that its proposals
“represent a significant change from what has gone before. No new member of the second chamber will arrive there on the same basis as any existing member of the House of Lords. No new member of the second chamber will get there via an Honours List. The new second chamber will be more democratic and representative than the present House of Lords”.
The Chamber would be more democratic because it
“as a whole will reflect the overall balance of political opinion within the country. Regional members will directly reflect the balance of political opinion within the regions”.
The House would be more representative because it would
“contain members from all parts of the country and from all walks of life, broadly equal numbers of men and women and representatives of all the country’s main ethnic and religious communities”.
In conclusion, I believe that the Wakeham commission proposals would make the House of Lords more representative of the regions and nations, as per the Government’s election manifesto.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 111 in this group. Over the last four days of debate, I think I have been convinced that there are better ways of achieving this.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this group and the next group of amendments all seek to either defer the implementation of the Bill or to set conditions on its implementation. The reason for that second point has to do with various other changes that noble Lords wish to make in how the House is constituted and behaves, which it believes that it is most likely to achieve by setting those conditions. I disagree with that; I think that the simplest and most sensible thing is to pass this Bill as it is and proceed to look at the other things, as I will now suggest.
Early in these debates, lost in the mists of history, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that he thought that it was unfortunate that the powers that be had allowed amendments on such a wide range of things, and I said that I agreed with him. To a limited extent at least, I have changed my mind, because the earlier debates around retirement, participation and attendance demonstrated that there was a very considerable degree of agreement in your Lordships’ House. Hopefully, that gives us a basis for going forward that did not exist before—and that was a good thing.
The question is how we go forward. An assumption has been that the only way to make those significant further changes is by further legislation. As I said earlier in these debates, I am very wary of that, because the House would cease to be a self-regulating House and would become a Commons-regulated House. The House of Commons would determine what it said about when we should retire, how often we should come and how we should behave when we are here.
Knowing some of my new colleagues, I can quite well imagine that a lot of them think that 80 is far too old for anybody to be in your Lordships’ House. They will think, “Well, I’ll make a bit of a name for myself by putting down 65”. I can see a lot of people thinking, “That’s a jolly good idea—we’ll show ’em”. The arguments that we have heard ad infinitum here about how wonderful we are cut zero ice at the other end of this Palace. I can well imagine that we would find ourselves with a different retirement age to the one that is currently likely to form the nearest thing to consensus in your Lordships’ House.
I equally think that colleagues at the other end, who know very little or nothing about the way we work, would be appalled that we think the kind of attendance level we have been discussing—10%, 15% or 20%—is even vaguely reasonable. They think that we are here to do a job and you cannot do a job on one day a fortnight. I am therefore strongly of the view—and I hope the Leader will take a lead on this—that we should look at ways, which I believe exist, under which we can introduce retirement, participation and attendance norms that would satisfy your Lordships’ House and continue the principle that we are a self-regulating House. I hope she might take a lead by convening a group herself or establishing another group to do the task, within a set timescale, of reaching consensus—or rather, something that nearly everybody can live with—on those areas, so that we can deal with them ourselves.
Apart from anything else, beyond thinking that no further legislation is possible in this Parliament, anybody who has been in government will find it difficult to believe that any Government would introduce a House of Lords reform Bill in two successive Sessions. That is very unlikely for any Government. When I was the Government Deputy Chief Whip, I was on the future legislation committee with Members of the Commons—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, chaired it at one point. I pity the poor Minister who came to argue before that committee that they wanted a second House of Lords reform Bill within 18 months. I just do not think it is doable.
There is a way forward for all those second-stage reforms. Then there is the third stage: the possibility of the House of Lords being elected. There is a very easy way of dealing with that within the context of this Bill. It is simply for everybody to vote for a resubmitted Amendment 11, in my name, which I shall put down before Report, calling on the Government to start drafting a Bill which looks at electing your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does the noble Lord accept that, if you are going to elect your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what it will do beforehand?
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Those of us on these Benches are clear that we support the inclusion of wider faith representatives in your Lordships’ House. Since before the Wakeham commission, we have favoured wider representation. Many of us work alongside different faith leaders and we know well the expertise that they can bring. In past submissions to this House, the Church of England has offered to work with the appointments commission on how representatives from other denominations and faiths might be identified to serve here. However, this is not straightforward. For example, Roman Catholic clergy are prohibited by the Vatican from serving on legislatures, and it is not easy to find representative leaders among diverse bodies such as Churches or other faith groups. This would require serious discernment, more than is offered by Amendment 109.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I think that I am the only Member of the House, except for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who was here in 1999 for the first expulsion—
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Oh, there were others.
I remind the Committee that we were brutally removed when the Act was passed. It was late December that the Bill was taken through its final stages, and we were out of the House by the end of December. The great difference—as I hope other noble Lords who were there in 1999 will remember—is that we did not have any long debates. We had no debates about the future constitution of the House of Lords, except whether it would be elected or appointed. That is where our discussions ended. I am getting a nod from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, so I am getting support on that point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I do not know if it is a sentiment shared by the Ministers opposite, but I for one think that the 39 hours we have spent in Committee on this Bill has been time well spent—maybe 39.5 hours now, I suppose.
The Government chose to affect this part of the reform that they set out in their manifesto not through a royal commission or constitutional convention but on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, in a Bill they drafted knowing, through their experience, all the downsides of that when it comes to the scope and role of your Lordships’ House to scrutinise and ask questions. They chose to do it that way. I am glad that the five days we have spent in Committee have afforded the Lord Privy Seal the opportunity to hear the consensus, enthusiasm and anxiety of many noble Lords to see the Government turn to those other parts of their manifesto commitments on the reform of this House as swiftly as possible.
The points covered in these amendments echo questions that were left unanswered in 1999 and in the decade of Labour Government that followed that Act. If the remaining hereditary Peers are to be expelled before these questions are answered, we owe it to them at least to set out a timetable within which these matters will be turned to. We would not have needed five days in Committee if answers were a bit more forthcoming to some of the questions that noble Lords raised. I hope that the Leader of the House is able to address the questions that underly these amendments and to set out, with a bit more certainty, when the Government propose to turn to the second stage of their reform of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a theme we have discussed which regularly goes beyond hereditary Peers. I understand the point the noble Lord has made. The Committee has been useful. I would not have expected the debate to range so widely, given that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there were three stages here—the first being immediate reform to hereditary Peers; the next being to talk about participation, retirement, HOLAC and things such as the citations that we now have for people, which have already been put into place without needing any legislation. We will see more issues coming forward on the kind of things that we can do. Though it was unexpected, the scope of the amendments has been rather wide.
It has been useful—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, would agree if he was listening—if unexpected, because I had not realised quite the degree of interest and concern from noble Lords, and support for bringing forward the other issues on participation and retirement. I think that helps us move things forward. It was unexpected and at times frustrating but it has been very helpful. I am grateful to noble Lords for that.
However, these amendments go further than I would be willing to accept because they all make the progress of the Bill towards Royal Assent conditional on certain actions being taken. That would be a rather unusual step for this House to take. The objection is not that further reforms should not happen—noble Lords will know from conversations I have had with them that I am committed to that, and our manifesto committed to it. There was support from around the House, which had not been forthcoming before, so I was very encouraged by that. But it should not be conditional on the Bill.
The reason why this part came forward—I feel as if I am repeating myself, but it has happened before and it will happen again, and I am not the only one—is the principle established over 25 years ago on hereditary Peers. We signalled this part of legislation several times beforehand—I will repeat myself—but we offered support to get my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill through; that was rejected and we said this would happen, and here we are now.
I had not realised how much support there was around the House for the other issues, so we can look at that and, I hope, bring things back some time soon. So this is the immediate reform and it can happen separately, prior to other reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made proposals for a draft Bill along the lines of the Wakeham commission’s findings. I had not heard him speak so often or so eloquently on Lords reforms before this Bill, so I am grateful to him for doing so. The Wakeman commission was in 2002. That does not mean that some of those proposals are not still relevant and cannot be considered, but it was a long time ago and things change, as he will know. But I am grateful to him for his interest in that, which I had not appreciated before this Bill. I look forward to working with him and others on that as we go forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I think his memory is slightly remiss on this one. It was, in fact, in November that the Bill got Royal Assent, and it happened so quickly then—I think this was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made earlier—because we had Royal Assent towards the end of the Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had concerns about this. When he raised this point previously it was almost as if—to coin a famous Tony Blair phrase from a Labour Party conference some years ago—Members heard the sound of pennies dropping. I got the impression that many noble Lords thought that it would be preferable if this House came to an arrangement or to a broad consensus on participation and retirement rather than having legislation on it. I am happy about either. I would like to find a way forward to get some consensus, if that is possible. It may be that legislation has to follow that, or that there will be legislation if there is no consensus. As I say, this is how I would have preferred to deal with this issue had we been in government sooner, but as Leader of the Opposition I made it clear that it was my view that, if the House can come to a consensus and arrangement on how we do things—I hope to be able to talk more about the process—then I would be happy to do so. As I say, I am greatly encouraged, even by noble Lords who have never previously spoken on or shown any interest in Lords reform, that there is a different mood now, and I think Members want to look at this issue.
I want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Newby: the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto were not for an elected second Chamber. It was not so specific. It talked about “alternative” arrangements for a second Chamber, and that would be for consultation. I know some noble Lords from across the House would prefer an elected Chamber, while others prefer other arrangements.
On my own view, I must admit that I am nervous. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said that he thought we should challenge the House of Commons more, and that greater democracy in this Chamber would make us challenge the House of Commons more. I still think of the House of Commons as the primary, elected Chamber. There is a different role for your Lordships’ House, which brings me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, raised, in a rare moment of agreement between us: we have to look at the function of a second Chamber before we move forward too quickly on the arrangements for a fully reformed second Chamber.
There is a debate to be had about that, which is why our manifesto talks about engaging and consulting, including with the public, to do so. It is right to give that careful consideration. We have a proposal before us. I do not think that the commencement of the Bill should be conditional on any of the measures before us, so I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. All of them were excellent, but I will comment in particular on the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which I found very interesting and hopeful, in many ways. He is right that many of the measures in the Labour Party manifesto, which many of us are asking to see brought forward, at the very least for debate, would be better dealt with in and through your Lordships’ House than by means of legislation. Indeed, that would make it easier for the Front Bench to bring them forward in a prompt and timely manner. He also opened the door—as did my noble friend Lord True, when he spoke earlier in Committee—to discussions with the Lord Privy Seal about how to take these things forward. The great difficulty we have had so far is that there has been no substantive response to that, but I found what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said interesting.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord says that there has never been a substantive response. I can be clear that I have always said almost exactly the same words as I have said today, or paraphrased them: I have always thought that the best way is to seek consensus in this House. At the conclusion of this Bill, I would like to reach consensus in this House on other issues that we have been discussing in the manifesto, and I look forward to bringing in some proposals for how we might achieve that. It is up to the House whether it wishes to accept those or not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Nothing in what the noble Baroness just said contradicted what I said. There has been no substantive response. The noble Baroness might want to proceed by consensus. That is a method of proceeding. I refer to the substance, and there has been no substantive response, despite the fact that it has been perfectly open to the Front Bench to bring forward substantive proposals, at least for discussion, so far.
There is no need for my Amendment 104—again, this relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said—to be embedded in legislation. The noble Baroness, from her years in opposition, complained that it is designed to hold up implementation of the Bill. She knows perfectly well that, to a degree, it is a contrivance to attach an amendment to a commencement clause in order to allow for a debate, but the plain words of my amendment, which are largely taken word for word from the Labour Party manifesto and include not a commitment to a democratic House but to exactly what it says in that manifesto, could be achieved by the simple expedient of the Government bringing forward exactly the consultation document they promised and exactly the draft Bill that needs to go with it, exactly as it stands in their manifesto, at a time of their choosing but in the near future, as an earnest of what they are doing so that we can see the direction in which they are going. Obviously, the need for legislation or any amendment to this Bill would then fall away, because the Government would have done what the amendment calls for.
We are to some extent going round in circles. We want to hear the Government’s programme. There is no substance to the Government’s programme. I am glad that we have flushed out that there is no substance to it. With that, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Blencathra
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove Exempted Hereditary peers over a longer timescale, to permit the House to benefit from their input while giving them more time to seek alternative employment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we all accept that the hereditary principle is now over. The Labour manifesto said that they would remove hereditary Peers, but it did not say exactly when. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that it was to be immediate, but “immediate” in the manifesto referred to modernisation and a retirement age of 80 for Peers. It was the modernisation which would be immediate, not necessarily the removal of hereditary Peers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 107 and 113 in my name seek to postpone the removal of the hereditary Peers to the end of the next Session, rather than the end of this one. For the record, I have never sought to have my amendments degrouped from any others.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier on today, this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, though I have, of course, followed the proceedings. I support other amendments that would postpone the removal of the hereditary Peers, but I believe mine has the best chance of getting the support of other parties, because the postponement is relatively modest and so does the least injury to the haste with which the Government have committed themselves in their manifesto.
The real criticism of this Bill is not that it is gerrymandering or prosecuting a class war. There are perfectly respectable arguments for removing the hereditaries. The substantial criticism of the Bill is that it will undermine the capacity of the House of Lords to hold the Government to account by removing some of its most active Members—that is its Achilles heel.
The House of Lords is not a place where sheep may safely graze. It is a key part of our constitution, improving the quality of legislation and giving the other place an opportunity to think again. We have repeatedly heard of the disproportionate amount of heavy lifting done by the hereditary Peers; I will not repeat those arguments, but not only have they gone unchallenged but Government Ministers have gone out of their way to heap praise upon the hereditaries for the work they do.
The Government’s public response to this criticism is to say that it is an insult to the rest of us to imply that we cannot backfill the void. But in their hearts, they know that the House will be weaker. I believe they plan to do something about it, but they will not acknowledge this publicly, or begin to discuss what their response might be, until the Bill is safely on the statute book. My amendment seeks to allow more space for that discussion and more space for the subsequent response than is provided for at the moment by postponing their departure until the end of the next Session. It would give more time for ranks to be replenished and capacity to be retained, possibly by the retention of some of those due to leave.
As we have heard, many hereditary Peers sit on Select Committees, the work of which goes on from one Session to the next. We heard from my noble friend Lord Forsyth about the five Deputy Speakers. We need a longer transition if the work of the House is not to be disrupted. The amendment is perfectly consistent with the manifesto, and it actually addresses the weakness in the Government’s defence.
I believe there is a further argument for more time: we should treat fairly those who have given up careers outside and give them more time to adjust. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said on Second Reading on 11 December:
“My first reservation is the implication that all excepted hereditary Peers should be required to retire once the Bill becomes law”.
He went on to say:
“Often, they have given up alternative careers to join this House”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1736.]
I was relieved to hear that the Government will not support Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Here, I will refer to what happened last time. In June 1993, the Labour Party committed itself to a two-stage process of reform, removing the hereditaries in the first stage. After the election in 1997, they actually left in 1999—six years after the commitment and two years after the election.
By contrast, there has been dramatically less notice this time. There had been reports in the last Parliament that, following the publication of the Brown report in 2022, the House of Lords would be abolished and replaced with a form of regional representation. In February 2024, it was reported that wholesale reform would not be a priority for the first term; then there were reports that a Labour Government would confine themselves to implementing the Grocott Bill. It was not until 13 June last year that the Labour Party committed itself to the abolition of the hereditary Peers, leaving some 18 months before removal.
The Government sometimes point to the contrast with MPs, who lose their job overnight. But there is an important difference. Every MP knows that there will be a day of reckoning every five years or less: that is the deal. But it is not the case with Peers. Also, for every MP who is removed, a new one takes his or her place—an important distinction.
In 1997, there was a key difference. The two groups of Peers principally affected, the Conservatives and the Cross-Benchers, were allowed to choose their share of the 92 remaining. That meant that the capacity of the House to hold the Government to account was affected only marginally. There is no such safety net this time round, and the time in which to rebuild that capacity, as in the Bill, is much less.
I end with a final reason. It is important to avoid the ungracious way in which the hereditary Peers were made to depart in 1997: “Thank you and goodbye”, with T-shirts celebrating their departure. There was an absence of generosity of spirit last time, which I know the current Administration are anxious to avoid.
This amendment is moderate and sensible. It deserves serious consideration from the Lib Dems and Cross Benches, on whom its fate will depend.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who set out some wise and compelling reasons for his amendment. I hope that the Government will consider it as seriously as it deserves to be taken.
My Amendment 106 in this group is not so much about timing as about ensuring that proper bicameral consideration has been given to the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament. It seeks for commencement to take place not at the end of this Parliament but at the end of the Parliament after this. This follows the point that I raised at Second Reading, when I pointed out that we have a very new House of Commons: more than half the Members of another place were elected for the first time in July last year. When I spoke at Second Reading, I pointed out that the other place had sat for only 62 days; with their greater experience by the end of this Committee, they have now sat for 115 days—still not a great deal of time.
In this Parliament, we have so far passed only three Acts of Parliament. Two were money Bills and one was about renationalising the railways. At Second Reading, I wondered how many MPs had had the chance to experience effective working between the Houses and across the parties to see how we make laws better by working between the two Chambers. There has still been little opportunity for them to do so; on the whole, they are still a rather green bunch on the green Benches.
That is why, while I and all noble Lords respect the primacy of the elected House and the mandate on which the Government were elected, we would find it disappointing if this Bill, which seeks to make such profound changes to your Lordships’ House, has to be rammed through with no amendments from your Lordships’ House; and why I find it disappointing to hear again from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and others that we should not dare to put an amendment that we know will be overturned in another place. With a majority of 174, that argument could apply to every piece of legislation brought before us in the rest of this Parliament. That is not the role of your Lordships’ House. I hope that it does not become it.
Not by seeking to lengthen the time before commencement but by asking that greater thought is given to this by both Houses of Parliament, full of people who have experience of legislating for the better interests of our country—and sharing some of the concerns that were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about becoming a House regulated by the lower House—I hope noble Lords will look at my Amendment 106 with seriousness as well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, so I simply want to say this: I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will take on board the very wise advice given by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in speaking to his amendment. He is vastly experienced, having been Leader in the other place. I think all of us, with the possible exception of the odd Conservative Whip, have much enjoyed the way in which he takes a sometimes very independent and always well-considered view of matters before the House. Notwithstanding the earlier debate, I would like to be on record as very firmly in support of what he suggested. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader will treat that seriously in the interests of the House as a whole.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, other amendments in this group have a tendency to delay the date of implementation of the Bill. My Amendment 107A is neutral on that. It would remove the words relating to the end of the Session from the Bill and instead would make the implementation of the Bill dependent on a statutory instrument to be moved by the Government. To make it all the easier for the Government to accept it, I have ensured that it would be through the negative procedure, so it would be the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do. That flexibility might be of advantage to the Government; indeed, if I were them, I would seize this amendment with open hands and adopt it as my own.
Noble Lords who are hereditary Peers may think that it introduces an element of capriciousness about their fate and that they would therefore be uncertain about when they would come to the end of their term. But there is already a large degree of capriciousness and uncertainty, because the end of the Session is, of course, not a fixed date: it will be decided, in effect, by the Prime Minister, and I am sure he will decide it according to a broad range of considerations. The fate of Members of your Lordships’ House is probably quite low on that list. The Session could end at any time. Noble Lords who feel that they would somehow be losing control of events by handing this power to the Government just need to remember that the end of the Session is equally in the Government’s power. But this would give the Government a little more flexibility and allow them to have more discussions, perhaps after the Bill has passed, about an appropriate time for implementing it, so as to be able to carry noble Lords with them a little more.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I spoke in November and December, and again in this Committee, about the necessity of avoiding a cliff edge when we were thinking about retirement ages. I thought it would be interesting to inform the Committee of the nature of the cliff edge for the Cross Bench and the necessity I therefore feel for considering very carefully the transitional arrangements, which this series of amendments really goes to.
In a pure sense, we would lose 18.5% of our membership—and, therefore, of the people who put in the hours in this House—upon the coming into force of this Bill. If you adjust that by taking out the people who come less than 10% of the time—the people who really are inactive—that rises to 22.5%. Without a transitional arrangement, the Bill represents quite a difficulty for the Cross Bench in trying to deliver the services we try to deliver to this House.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I will be incredibly brief. My name is on the amendment, along with that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It is an issue I raised at Second Reading. It is something that has been of great importance, but we have had some very fine interventions and speeches this evening, which I do not wish to repeat.
I would simply say, without trying to sound in the least bit pompous, that constitutional change is not just a matter of winning votes; it is also about winning arguments and taking others with you. I simply say to the Government that, judging from the mood I have sensed this evening, if they were to give even a little in this area, they could gain a great deal. I encourage the Government to look again a second time, and indeed a third time, at some of the very fine points that have been made in this House this evening.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I express my support for the last speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on his approach to what might happen on Report, and encourage him to reflect on the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Blencathra that, if that needs reinforcement, it might be by way of making sure we can make changes to this House as a result of secondary legislation that is initiated here.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, given the hour, I can also be brief, because the essential points have been made by the Convenor and by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. In essence, what lies behind all these proposed amendments is the question of effectiveness and the importance of putting in place some transitional arrangements to make sure that we do not face the cliff edge, to pick up that phrase from the Convenor, which would be to the detriment of all of us in this House and, indeed, to Parliament generally. We have, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded us, a bicameral Parliament and we have to make sure that both Houses work well together. So, the critical point here is that of effectiveness.
This group shows again why analogies are dangerous in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke in the last group and we had, yet again, the analogy with MPs. It is not a good analogy. The problem with analogies, as a Court of Appeal judge once put it to me, is that they are different, and we are dealing with a vastly different circumstance here: hereditary Peers leaving this House as against MPs leaving the House of Commons in a general election.
The central issue here is one of effectiveness and proper transitional arrangements. Therefore, I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal to these various options as to how we might best proceed here.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I am afraid I start by disappointing the noble Lord.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As long as it is not a disappointment, my Lord. It would have been a disappointing end to Committee—although we have one more group to go—if we had got to the final groupings without reference to the now famous spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. So, I thank him for that.
With regard to some of the comments, before I move on to the substance, I just want to correct for the record a couple of things. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, underestimates the interest of our colleagues at the other end of the building: not least, I believe that my fiancé is watching on television, so I am pretty sure that some Members of the other the other place are interested.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I was wondering. I bet a fiver that that lot at the other end of the building are not sitting. If they are sitting in front of a television at home, they are not sitting in that Chamber, as we are. The analogy between us and them and our salaries simply does not hold water.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I am a former Member of the other place and I am very aware of their sitting hours. They sit earlier than us. Also, my other half is sitting in his office doing casework while he waits for me to finish. Their hours are extensive and many Members of the other place work excessive hours. It was not unusual for me to work 100 hours a week as a Member of Parliament. I work not dissimilar hours serving your Lordships’ House.
I would also suggest that not only does the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, underestimate other colleagues, but I want to correct the record for both him and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Actually, 13 Bills have received Royal Assent since we took office.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for their thoughtful contributions, which I think changed the tone of this evening’s debate.
As we have heard, the amendments in this group would delay the commencement of the Bill. Noble Lords may be about to experience a sense of déjà vu, as much of my response will sound familiar from the past two groups. I think it is a fair to observe that the topic of commencement has been particularly affected by the groupings, not necessarily at the request of individuals Members, so I apologise to noble Lords if this feels repetitious.
At one end of the scale, Amendment 107, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would delay commencement until the end of the Session after the Session in which the Bill is passed. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, goes further by delaying it until the end of the Parliament in which the Bill is passed. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would delay the removal of hereditary Peers from this place until the end of the Parliament after the Parliament in which the Bill is passed, which would potentially delay the implementation of this overdue reform until as late as 2034—not that I know the dates of future general elections. Just for the record, we talked about future general elections and MPs having an appreciation of that. I was an MP for four and a half years, and I fought three general election campaigns. I did not really have time to prepare for my departure in the way that has been suggested.
As to Amendment 107A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, it appears to make the Act come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament which the Secretary of State appoints by commencement regulations. We cannot accept any amendment that would cause delay to the commencement of the Act. The Bill currently provides that it comes into force at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent, as set out in Clause 4. In response an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, in the previous group, my noble friend the Leader of the House made it clear that these arrangements seek to ensure the timely delivery of our manifesto commitment without undermining the business of the House and are entirely consistent with the approach taken in 1999. I respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the Government already have a precise plan of when to bring this legislation into force, as set out in Clause 4. It is not a good use of the time of the Government, nor indeed that of the House, to require an additional piece of legislation to commence the Act. Given all that has been repeatedly said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to respond to the debate—not just to the amendment but to some of the comments of my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made an excellent speech and moved an excellent amendment. It was modest and moderate, as he said. The Achilles heel of this Bill is that it reduces the capacity of the House of Lords and the Opposition to hold the Government to account. As he pointed out, the House will be the weaker because of it. He made a very good point that, in 1999, the Conservatives had a chance to select those who would contribute most so that the House did not suffer a large drop in capacity. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said that it is wrong that we should not make amendments in this House just because the Commons would not like them and would reject them. He is absolutely right on that point. My noble friend Lord Moylan said that his amendment would give some flexibility and certainty. There is a certain merit in his argument. It would not be on just whenever the Session might end but on a date of the Government’s choosing. That could be announced well in advance to give hereditary Peers who are leaving this House some certainty. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean in the tribute he paid to the Leader of the House, who is courteous and thorough and treats all Members with courtesy and respect.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is rightly worried about the disproportionate effect on the Cross Benches. He made a very important point tonight. He was very brief about it and I would like to have heard more, but from what I understood, he made one of the most important contributions in our debate. I thank my noble friends Lord Dobbs and Lord Lucas for their support tonight. My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar also made the point that the central point of this is effectiveness. This Bill reduces effectiveness. He also made the point that retirement or the way MPs leave their House and the ways Peers leave this House are totally different and are not comparable.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, for her response. Okay, my amendment about going to the end of the Parliament may be going too far, but I think my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made an excellent argument for just two Sessions. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Government’s undue haste in this. What is to be gained by chucking the hereditaries out at the end of this Session rather than at the end of the next Session? However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.