Mathematical Sciences
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support mathematical sciences.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting mathematical sciences across the United Kingdom. The Government fund a variety of initiatives to support schools through the DfE, amounting to £185 million since 2014. Direct research funding to UKRI amounts to £24 million. Funding to the Royal Society through DSIT amounts to £42 million. Our wider support to STEM stands at close to £100 million in the skills ecosystem, including Skills England. We continue to work directly with the mathematical sciences sector to identify further opportunities where the Government can support this critical activity.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and indeed for the courtesy of his noble friend the Minister, who met me recently to discuss these issues. Does the noble Lord agree that the advanced mathematics are essential to underpinning everything that Britain hopes to achieve in AI and in advanced industry, including defence? Will he reaffirm the previous Government’s commitment to the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme—which has recently been cut, to the distress of Sir Demis Hassabis and others—and to providing the United Kingdom with the next-generation computing power that we need?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, to ensure value for money and alignment with government policies, we are reviewing the activities delivered by the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme and the funding it receives. So far, we have spent something like £33 million on it, and close to £185 million has been spent on the maths hubs. Some £24 million of this has gone through UKRI to some maths programmes. We are discussing how to ensure the continuity of these services and redirecting some of the funding while plans are drawn up to better focus the programme towards the Government’s opportunity mission and skills for the future, such as AI and data science. I can also assure the noble Lord that the Government have invested some £300 million in new supercomputers in Bristol and Cambridge, and are moving to increase computing capacity a further twentyfold by 2030.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in addition to the cuts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, the Government have withdrawn funding from the planned national academy for the mathematical sciences, but polling among employers for the Maths Horizons project found that maths skills are increasingly in demand. Do we not badly need a national strategy for maths, as the Campaign for Mathematical Sciences is calling for?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. There is nothing to cancel. The national academy was devised by the previous Government, who allocated £6 million towards it when they were not properly funded. The money was not there in the first place and £6 million was a meagre figure, whereas we are spending more and more money on other learned societies. It is as if I want to buy a £5 million penthouse around the corner, and I go to the estate agent and say, “I would like to buy it but I don’t have money allocated for it”. There is nothing to cancel.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the King’s Maths School. I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, who is in her place, for seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and me recently, and for visiting the school. We are most grateful to the Department for Education for agreeing to expand the school.
Does the Minister from DSIT agree that one of the best ways to enhance the study of mathematical sciences is to have further university-sponsored maths schools? There are now eight; I believe there are three more opening soon, but we could do more if the Government gave them some more money.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Duke for the question. Maths is now the second most popular subject at A-level; something close to 32% of those taking A-levels are doing maths. We have to encourage young people to take up maths. I was lucky to have a good maths teacher, so I really enjoyed algebra, calculus and so on. It is important that maths graduates go to teach in universities and become good teachers. The Government are investing money to recruit and retain these good teachers, so that maths can be liked by most children across the country.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend the Minister mentioned teachers. We all agree that maths underpins so much of the scientific work and growth on which our country depends, but is he aware that cuts in post-1992 universities are particularly worrying in the maths department, because over three times as many teachers come from post-1992 universities as from the Russell group? Will my noble friend the Minister take time to meet the president of the Academy for the Mathematical Sciences, Dame Alison Etheridge? It is very important for the Government to keep in close contact with the scientific bodies that represent mathematics.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Most of the graduates at Russell group universities will probably spend more time doing research than those going to the new universities, where teaching is the main curriculum. Only some 5% of those who go to Russell group universities end up as teachers. We have funding for recruiting teachers but we also need to retain them, which is very important, so the Government have initiatives to retain these teachers.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, 1.5 million school leavers apply to the Indian Institutes of Technology, the IIT; 130,000 make the first cut and 15,000 get places. These graduates are now running some of the biggest companies in the world. What more can we do to make maths and STEM subjects as popular as they are in India, and get the brightest and the best to go for them? When I was chancellor of the University of Birmingham, we set up a joint AI and data science degree with IIT Madras. Surely we should make many more collaborative degrees like that one.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. We have to compete globally for maths graduates, but at the same time we need to have a pipeline of students going through universities, studying maths and coming out to teach it. I will give some figures. We are spending some £233 million to try to recruit teachers, and giving graduates a £25,000 tax-free scholarship to take up teaching. We are spending some £6,000 each to encourage them to stay on as maths teachers.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, to ensure that the maximum number of people have the potential to study maths, does the Minister accept that at the ages of 15 and 16 they should have not only GCSE maths tuition but the opportunity to study additional maths? That would then open the future of mathematics for them. What will the Government do to try to ensure that we not only keep the teachers we have but add more teachers with a flair for maths to encourage that vital step forward?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. We have to get children to be interested in maths, to love maths and not to be scared of maths. We are putting a lot of money towards the various mathematical societies and learned societies. For the maths hubs, we have invested £185 million to get more teachers and students into maths. We have to do more, and we will continue to do more.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, compared with just one year ago, far more tech leaders are coming to the view that the skill of coding may already be redundant thanks to AI. Whether or not they are right, if we take that as just one example of rapid technology-driven change, does the Minister agree that whatever our plans to develop maths skills, they need to be much more agile and adaptive than they currently are? If so, how can that be brought about?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for that. I am sure he is aware that DSIT supports STEM talent partners; for example, over £100 million of funding has been committed to quantum skills programmes between 2024 and 2033. Our AI upskilling fund has been providing up to £10,000 for SMEs in the professional and business sector to deliver employee training. Everything has to start from somewhere, so we are spending the money to get people upskilled in the latest technology, whether it is coding or something else.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, at recent visits to the universities in Cambridge and Manchester, I was shocked to find the huge number of Chinese who are fulfilling special courses on mathematics, quantum and AI. That worried me because I have read reports about a number of them being ex-PLA people. Are we are content with the vast percentage of places being taken in this way, or are we doing something about it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. First, it is a myth that all Chinese do maths, because my daughter is not interested in it. Secondly, we have an open university system, so if people want to come to study in this country, whether it is maths or any other science, we should welcome them. We also always need to put in place certain structures to ensure that they are not leaving this country with any sensitive information and technology.
Free School Meals
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make it more straightforward for parents to check their children’s eligibility for free school meals.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we want to ensure that all families who need it get the support they are entitled to, which is why we make claiming free school meals simple through the provision of an eligibility checking system to local authorities to assess claims for meals. This system is being improved to allow parents to check their own eligibility for free meals, which has the potential to support more families in taking up their entitlement.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer, but the bureaucracy involved in registering is proving a barrier for many families. As a result, a considerable number of children are losing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled; the current estimate is about a quarter of a million across England. Does my noble friend agree that this is not just about the children? Local authorities are losing out on the pupil premium that is triggered as soon as registration takes place, and these are vital funds for many schools. I am not asking for more money: the money is already in the system. Rather, I invite my noble friend to suggest how that money can be released as fully as it has been in the local authorities that have introduced automatic enrolment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about how we can smooth the process to ensure that people are able to gain their entitlement. We recognise—as my noble friend does—the vital role played by free school meals both in supporting individual children and identifying where additional support needs to be provided to schools.
To reiterate what I said previously, we are working to improve the eligibility checking system, making it available to parents, for example. We are also working with stakeholders to better understand some of the barriers to the take-up of free school meals. The improvement of data sharing could also help to ensure that local authorities have the information they need to work more closely with the families who could, and should, be entitled to free school meals. That is why we are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable data sharing to improve that ability, giving local authorities access to that data and enabling them to take action to ensure that more families who are entitled are getting their free school meals.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, there is a history of underclaiming of benefits running through the whole system. It is not to do with this Government or even the last one; it has been there for a long time. Will the Government look at how to increase the number of people who claim what they are entitled to in the new Bill that is coming before us on 1 May, as that would seem to be a good opportunity?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are already taking action, as I suggested, through widening the ability of people to use the eligibility checker, by ensuring that there is better sharing of data with local authorities. On the point about reducing the friction in the application process, we are working with DWP to consider how we can more closely link applying for universal credit with entitlement to free school meals. There is a variety of activity that the Government are already undertaking. I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail and length when we bring forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to the House.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we want our children to be well fed at school. Hungry children cannot learn. Picking up on the comments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, there is still a lot of stigma around enrolling for this. Could AI not help local authorities and others to identify families who could qualify for free school meals and auto-enrol them?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I suspect that there are ways in which AI could help. As we talk to stakeholders and others who are involved in trying to encourage the full take-up of free school meal entitlement, there are also some less technological ways in which, for example, those who work closely with families, let us say in local authorities, on other areas of their benefits—housing benefit, for example—can be facilitated through the sharing of data that I have talked about to make the links for those families to the sharing of free school meals. There is a whole range of other areas of stigma, as my noble friend outlined, where sometimes work, both in schools and at a local level, can help to overcome those barriers and make sure that children and their families are getting what they are entitled to.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned DWP. She will be aware of the concerns about the loss of entitlement to free school meals when those on legacy benefits migrate to universal credit. The estimates I have seen are as high as 1 million children. Could she say what assessment the department has made of this? If she does not have the figures, perhaps she could write to me and put a copy in the Library.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is talking about the changes to the transitional protections: as she knows, phase one has now come to an end. To reassure families, no pupil will feel any change as a result of the move to phase two of the protections until after the summer. I can assure the noble Baroness that, as with all government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review. I am happy to write to her with the figures for those who have had transitional protections and how they will be supported until the end of this school year. Then, we will bring forward more information about what will happen at that particular point.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I was told before the election that this was a GDPR issue, but it became very clear that it is not. Now that that is clear, every single one of the 23 local authorities in the north-east is now engaged in auto-enrolling every eligible child for free school meals. In Newcastle alone, within the last year, that is over 2,000 additional children, and of course the schools also benefit. Will my noble friend join me in congratulating every one of those 23 authorities, but also really push to make sure that other local authorities just get on with it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point, and makes the case that I was trying to outline about the way in which local authorities are often very well placed to ensure that children are getting what they are entitled to, but often need the data and the information to be shared with them in order to be able to do that—although I know my noble friend thinks that they could have done it more easily. But we will facilitate the sharing of that data and I share her view that, where some local authorities have already made enormous progress in enrolling more children in free school meals, others should look to their example and ensure that they do that as well.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, will the Minister consider the scheme funded by the Mayor of London, by which all state primary school children receive free school meals, with the undoubted benefits that brings, and will she consider extending that nationally?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the things about devolving responsibilities is that it enables in this case mayors to make decisions about how they want to spend their resources. As I said, at the moment we are focused on ensuring that all those who are entitled to free school meals under the current criteria are able to get them. Decisions about how and whether to extend that entitlement more broadly will of course be dependent on much wider decisions about the resources that are available and where as a Government we think we need to focus them to get the best possible results for children.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, unlike other young students from poor backgrounds in further education who can qualify for a free meal, apprentices from poor backgrounds do not. Given that we want to encourage every young person from every background to go for an apprenticeship, will my noble friend the Minister consider looking again at the eligibility criteria for further education institutions to allow more young people from poor backgrounds to get and stay in apprenticeships?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I certainly want to ensure that we right the decline in young people starting apprenticeships that has happened over the last few years. As my noble friend knows, if you are in an apprenticeship, you are essentially in a job with training, spending perhaps one day a week in a further education college, so I am not sure that free school meals would be the best way of encouraging people on to those apprenticeships. But I certainly want to consider how we can enable more young people to get the benefits of an apprenticeship, particularly at that early age, where we have seen such a fall-off in the numbers.
Chagos Islands
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of Mauritius reopening negotiations on the Chagos Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, 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 which protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Although it is in everyone’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it and we do not intend to. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty before ratification.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to proceed with this dreadful surrender policy. It is worth remembering that this whole sorry saga originates from an advisory, non-legally binding ICJ opinion from a panel of judges—including those from Russia and China, who unsurprisingly were fully supportive of the UK giving up its sovereignty of a key strategic asset. Is the Minister not even a little embarrassed at having to find painful cuts in her new overseas aid budget to fund essential extra defence spending, only to then see £18 billion of that funding wasted on leasing back an asset that we already own?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What I am embarrassed by is that we inherited such a mess in our overseas development spend, with asylum accommodation being paid for by our development spend, and an Army that had been neglected—the smallest Army since Napoleon. That is what we inherited. That is what he ought to be ashamed of.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, there has been a great deal of chatter over the past few days to the effect that President Trump has approved a Chagos deal. Can the Minister advise us whether that is true? Also, whether it is true or not, is the Government’s expectation that the Americans will pay or at least make a significant contribution towards the rent?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have received formal confirmation from the White House that the United States supports the UK proceeding with the deal. This follows a rigorous US inter-agency process. We welcome the US endorsement of the deal and the President’s recognition of its strength.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, given the synthetic anger from the Benches opposite, can my noble friend the Minister remind us how many rounds of negotiation to resolve this issue were done by the previous Government, and tell us who the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries were who led those discussions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We went through quite a few Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. My recollection is that there were 12 or 13 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the House will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that his investment in Donald Trump is not getting many returns on this issue. However, perhaps it will allow us to move on to the real issue rather than the politicking of it. The Chagossians have had their rights denied over generations and many periods of government. I am aware that the Minister has not put a timetable on this, but can she indicate when we will get the draft text of the treaty?
Also, will this Government honour the Grimstone rule of the previous Administration that if a committee of this House, in looking at a draft treaty, asks for a debate in government time on a Motion that can be amended then the Government will commit to that? I would be grateful if the Minister could say that that rule will continue to apply.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There will be legislation before the House to do this. I do not know exactly the process or whether a debate will be in government time—the Chief Whip is sitting to my right. As far as I am aware, we are not amending the process by which this would be considered.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the total cost over 99 years will be a staggering £50 billion, according to my figures? The Government did not have to give in to Mauritius at a time when we face economic headwinds. What will she say to Labour MPs in marginal constituencies that face the consequences of the Chancellor’s austerity, with cuts to libraries, children’s services, the fire service and grants to charities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The numbers that have been quoted are completely incorrect. This is an agreement with Mauritius that we have worked out respectfully and collaboratively. The characterisation that the noble Lord puts forward is not correct.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, if we are to spend such large sums of money on the lease of an overseas military base, it is important that that base remains viable. What measures are being put in place to ensure that Diego Garcia is protected from surveillance of hostile powers, such as China?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord is completely right. The security of the base is one of the reasons why we felt we wanted to make sure we had a stable, legal agreement. There will be provisions within the agreement that prevent the things that he is concerned about.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the one party not mentioned in the Question is the Îlois—the Chagossians themselves. What efforts will the Government make to ensure that these communities are properly represented? Will they give some encouragement to the Mauritian Government to ensure that the Chagossians, both inside and outside Mauritius, are fully consulted during the negotiation process?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As my noble friend says, the Chagossian people have been badly treated since the very beginning of all of this. This is an agreement that has been reached between the United Kingdom and Mauritius as states, but he is right to highlight that it is important that the Chagossians are included in our thinking on this. They will be able to return to Diego Garcia on visits again, and the Mauritians will enable a programme of returning to some of the outer islands. It is a better position for the Chagossians than they have at the moment, but I accept—and we are completely open about the fact—that it will not give the Chagossian communities everything that they have wished to see since they were forced to leave.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will inform the House that there were 11 negotiations under the previous Government, and continuity counts— I can vouch for that. The main reason why there was no agreement was the issue of security. I seek the Minister’s assurance on that point. Also, under the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, there has been some disagreement over the possibility of the extension of the 99-year lease by another 40 years. I would welcome the Minister’s insights as to where the negotiations have got to on that point.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The thing with the new Governments is that they like to look at things afresh, and it is absolutely right that they are able to do that. The noble Lord will be reassured to know that we have managed to iron out the differences that there were, and the Government of Mauritius, the UK Government and now the US Government, it would seem, are content to proceed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, is there any overall consistency about who pays rent for the use of overseas bases? I understand that the American Government pay the Japanese Government for the use of Okinawa, which is a substantial base. As far as I am aware, the United States does not pay the British Government for its bases in Britain, or for its use of Ascension Island and listening posts in Cyprus. They are covered simply by exchanges of letters—which, I understand, have since been lost. Why is it that in Diego Garcia, where, as I understand it, there are fewer than 20 British personnel and a much larger number of American personnel, we are paying the rent to the Mauritians, not the Americans?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Reducing this to who pays rent to whom does not really reflect the nature of the benefit to each country. We have a very close relationship with the United States. We could not be closer in terms of defence, security and intelligence. That is the benefit that we want to gain from this arrangement. It is about keeping people safe. Discussions around rent may be interesting in this Chamber, but I am concerned that we achieve a stable, secure base that we are able to benefit from for our national security in the years to come.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is right: the Diego Garcia base is of vital strategic importance to us in the UK and to the Americans. For the avoidance of any doubt, can she tell your Lordships’ House whether the negotiations have included any guarantees over future UK access to the Diego Garcia base?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The whole purpose of the negotiations was to enable the joint base to continue, because we feel that we work very well together as allies. That is the situation that we want to continue.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the guidelines recently issued by the Sentencing Council.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor has been clear about her concerns since the guidelines were published: that they risk differential treatment before the law. We asked the Sentencing Council to revise them and were disappointed by its refusal to do so. As a result, yesterday, we introduced legislation to address the very specific issue with this guideline. The Sentencing Council has put the guideline on pause while Parliament, rightly, has its say.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House, first, how can the proposed Bill justifiably be regarded as emergency legislation when, plainly, a non-statutory resolution is available? Secondly, will he tell us whether consideration was given to referring the issues to the Gauke sentencing review—which will report shortly—and, if not, why not? Finally, will he tell the House whether the Government have consulted the Women’s Justice Board, which the Minister himself chairs? Have they realised that the proposed definition of “personal characteristics” in the Bill is a recipe for repeated legal challenges; for example, as to whether “pregnant” or “postnatal” are proscribed definitions? I thank Joshua Rozenberg for those examples.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We believe that the guidelines represent a differential treatment before the law and that is why we oppose them. We asked the Sentencing Council to revise them and, as I said, it did not. The Lord Chancellor has introduced legislation to address this specific issue. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines were due to come into effect on 1 April, so it is right that we moved quickly on this and have introduced legislation to address the matter at hand.
I am grateful to the Sentencing Council for the constructive conversations it has had with the Lord Chancellor. It paused the in-force date of the guideline until the legislation, which was introduced yesterday, takes effect. The Independent Sentencing Review that David Gauke is chairing is a much wider review of sentencing that is due to report in the coming months. We look forward to considering its recommendations carefully when they come out.
On the Women’s Justice Board, which I proudly chair, I have spoken to several members about this and I am grateful to them for sharing their views. To be clear, judges will continue to be able to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they already would; for example, those involving pregnant women, young people or domestic abuse.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in Scotland, the court is legally obligated to request a criminal justice social work report before imposing for the first time a custodial sentence on anyone, on an accused under the age of 21, and in many other circumstances, including specific sentences. The legal basis for such a report is set out in Section 203 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995—legislation passed by this Parliament under a Conservative Government. In the 30 years since then, no one has ever alleged that Scotland has a two-tier justice system. Will my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice consider a similar revision of criminal justice law for the part of the UK for which they have responsibility?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I am sure he is aware that I am not an expert on Scottish law, as I know some other noble and noble and learned Lords are. However, our position is that the Sentencing Council’s guideline could lead to differential treatment before the law. That is why we have acted as we have. Any judge can still ask for a pre-sentencing report in any case where they consider it necessary.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we are all committed to equal treatment, but there is a mass of evidence, including the Lammy review, that ethnic minority defendants are far more likely to be sent to prison than their white counterparts. So we already have a two-tier justice system. Thorough pre-sentence reports are the only robust way to address that, and that is what the proposed guideline is about. Instead of emergency legislation, can the Government not, even now, work with the Sentencing Council to reach a solution that addresses damaging rationing of pre-sentencing reports and ensures that the personal circumstances of defendants in vulnerable cohorts are fully considered?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Nothing in the Bill prevents judges requesting a pre-sentence report for pregnant women—it is normal practice for judges to request pre-sentence reports in cases involving pregnant women—nor does the Bill affect Court of Appeal case law, which states that a pre-sentence report is desirable in those cases. I believe that pre-sentence reports are very important, but they have declined in number considerably over the last 10 years. From 2013 to 2023, they declined by 44%. That is why we are putting extra resources into probation, recruiting more probation officers so that they have the time to produce high-quality pre-sentence reports.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister—perhaps the Minister of State for pouring oil on troubled waters—referred to the dialogue between his department and the Sentencing Council. But, as he knows, after the report became public on 5 March, that dialogue was far from helpful. The Sentencing Council pushed back hard on the suggestion from the Secretary of State for Justice that it had created a two-tier sentencing system. Therein lay the fundamental problem, which is that when the previous Labour Government created the Sentencing Council, they created a body that was not answerable to the judges or the Government. Does the Minister consider that that model is now compromised, as evidenced by recent events? Will his department address the issue of how sentencing guidance should be provided in future?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is right to say that the Sentencing Council plays an important role in ensuring transparency and consistency in sentencing guidelines but I will not engage in the personal issues that he refers to. The Lord Chancellor is committed to reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council but it will take time to consider this carefully, so it is not appropriate for the Bill. For me, what is important is that we are proud of our judiciary and its independence, and the fact that, quite rightly, it is respected the world over.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, this disagreement is deeply disappointing. It does not come close to a constitutional crisis, because the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor are seeking to achieve the same thing. Is the Minister aware that elsewhere in the sentencing guidelines there is wording that reminds judges that there is, in fact, evidence that more black, Asian and other ethnicity offenders receive an immediate custodial sentence than white offenders? Does he agree that if the Sentencing Council would back down and change the wording of the offending part, there would be no need for this legislation?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. There is no doubt that more must be done to address inequality in the justice system, and the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a full review of the sentencing disparity and its causes. We are clear, though, that this is a matter of policy, which is why we are legislating on this. I am glad that the Sentencing Council has decided to delay the guidelines until this legislation has passed.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree, given the substantial achievements of the Sentencing Council, particularly in achieving consistency, that now is the time for quiet reflection in recognising that achievement?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his wise words, and for recognising that we could all do with a quiet period. We are all looking forward to the Recess in 48 hours’ time.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in the Free Speech Union and apologise for accidentally omitting to do so at Oral Questions yesterday. It was my first ever Oral Question, and I hope noble Lords will forgive the omission.
I want to ask the Minister for his assurance about another two-tier justice risk; namely, the work that the Government have embarked upon to come up with an official definition of Islamophobia that they then recognise and incorporate into guidance. Can he reassure the House that that definition will not be incorporated into any advice given by the College of Policing to the police in England and Wales, nor in any official advice produced by the CPS, nor in advice given to the Courts and Tribunals Service, and that once the definition has been adopted, it will mean that anti-Muslim hatred is not treated any differently by the police, courts or tribunals from anti-Sikh hatred, anti-Hindu hatred or, indeed, anti-Christian hatred?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his second question. As I have said previously, the Lord Chancellor is committed to doing a full review of policies to ensure that none of them contradicts the important principles of equality before the law.
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this last-minute announcement of the renewal of the fund, while welcome in itself, feels extraordinary, as it came after weeks of obfuscation and a day after the previous fund had expired. Will the Minister explain what happened, what went wrong, when applications will open and what the Government are doing to make sure that the most urgent cases are fast-tracked for support?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise the very important role played by the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provides valuable therapeutic support to adopted children and special guardianship children who were previously in care. I very much appreciate that the delay in confirming the continuation of this fund has been a very difficult time for many people. In relation to individual arrangements, we put in place transitional funding arrangements ahead of the full 2025-26 budget announcements that we were able to make yesterday. This means that therapy that started in the last financial year has continued into this financial year, so most children who are in the middle of their therapy have not missed out. I am pleased that the Government were able yesterday to confirm that £50 million has been allocated for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be announcing further details in coming days and opening applications to families and children across the country as soon as we can.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is nice to hear that we have actually got round to finding some solution here, but will the Minister give us an assurance that we will not have this stop-start approach to something which needs continuation? If we want people to become guardians or to take on these adoptions of very difficult cases, they need to have some continuation and support. Effectively, this delay, this potential trouble, was something that would discourage people. What are the Government going to do to make sure that this never happens again and to undo the damage they have done to the image here?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I pointed out, for individual children there was transitional support for therapy that they had got permission to receive from last year into this year. However, I concede that this has been a difficult time for both the children and families that receive support through the fund and for therapists who supply support as part of that funding. We will work as hard as we can to make sure that we provide consistency and early indication of budgeting in future years.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it seems clear that this support is critical for many children, and I am thinking in particular of children in kinship care. The problem is that at the moment the criteria restrict the fund to those who have previously been in the care system. When kinship care really works well is when the case conference enables the wider family to step in immediately, but the child may still be traumatised and indeed other members of the family may need support too. Will the Minister commit to looking at this so that, when the Government are thinking about the criteria for the now very welcome money, they think about those who are not just coming through the care system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the adoption and special guardianship support fund is specifically aimed at recognising the state’s role in having previously cared for the child at the point at which they are adopted or go into special guardianship. She is also right about the enormously important role that kinship care plays in our system. That is why the Government have made a series of announcements about how we can support the important role of kinship care: the appointment of the first national kinship care ambassador; the new kinship care statutory guidance for local authorities; the delivery of over 140 peer support groups across England, available for all kinship carers to access; and, of course, the recently announced £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance, to test whether paying an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting the child can help to increase the number of children taken in by family members and friends, with all the benefits that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need to do all that we can to demonstrate that we value enormously people who are willing to adopt a child who has had a very unfortunate start to their young lives? That includes the excellent foster carers who would like to go forward to adoption but who may have difficulty reconciling the financial issues that that raises. Could the Minister assure the House that everything will be done to promote adoption as a positive, creative and enabling way of protecting children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. As I say, I do regret the concern that there has been among adoptive parents and those with special guardianship orders about the certainty of the support that we were able to announce yesterday. I assure noble Lords that this does not show a lack of support from the Government for adopted children or adopters, who, as the noble Lord says, play an enormously important and positive role. Today, the Government have been able to confirm funding of £8.8 million for Adoption England to improve the recruitment of adopters and the matching of children and family support during this financial year.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, with regard to the delay in funding, I welcome the Minister’s point about transition funding being arranged for existing families, but because of the delay there will be a backlog of kinship families and local authorities that want to proceed with new applications for therapeutic assessments and support. What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that processing can be done at speed for these new applications?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We want to come forward quickly with information about how new applications can be made, and I will be happy to share details of that with the House. I understand that, when applications are made, they are dealt with quickly through the system, but we need to be clear with people about how to go about making those applications, and that is something that we are working on at this moment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the funding that has been announced for the next financial year is welcome, and I know that the Government have said that funding going forward will be subject to the spending review. Is it anticipated that there will be an announcement that this fund will be secured over more than one year?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness answered the question in her question. We have announced £50 million for this financial year and, as part of the coming spending review, we will look to consider the position over a longer period. That is not only in respect of this particular fund but is the case with a lot of the expenditure we currently have and would have been the case under the previous Government as well in the run-up to a three-year spending review, which is the period we are in now.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for having widened the crack she opened about a week ago when this matter was first raised in this House? That was welcome. I also thank her for the very whole-hearted way in which she endorsed kinship care in her responses just now. Does she recognise that in the education Bill, whose Second Reading will be on 1 May, which deals with some aspects of kinship care, there are obscurities and weaknesses in that? I hope that, between now and 1 May, she can give some very careful thought as to how that could be made more precise in the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am looking forward to 1 May, when we can start the adventure of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am undertaking to continue my learning about the provisions within that Bill over the Easter Recess and, as I have learnt in this House, I have no doubt that we will both get into the detail and be informed by considerable experts on all parts of that legislation. I look forward to explaining more about how that Bill will support kinship care and to learning more about the challenge and what more this Government need to be able to do to put that into operation.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 2nd April 2025
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
17:09 - Division on Amendment 36 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 216 - Amendment 36 disagreed.
18:27 - Division on Amendment 53 - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 53 agreed.
18:39 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 57 agreed.
18:50 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 142 - Amendment 58 agreed.
19:01 - Division on Amendment 60 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 60 disagreed.
Lord Blunkett
(c) enabling persons with disabilities (within that meaning) to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables guidance about safety and accessibility of stopping places to include guidance for the purpose of enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 35A I will speak also to consequential amendments on the Order Paper in my name. Before I do so, I pay tribute to all those who have been campaigning, as organisations and individuals, over a substantial time on this critical issue, long before I became engaged with it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on his part and his commitment and dedication. One of the reasons I signed his original Amendments 36 and 38 was to ensure that pressure was brought to bear on the Government, and the Government have responded. I pay tribute to other Members who have signed his amendments, and those who have campaigned, present and past, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the late Baroness Randerson, who did an enormous amount on this issue, and my noble friend Lady Hughes, who got the attention of the House back in the autumn by moving a Motion to which she spoke which focused attention on this critical issue, as did the Transport Select Committee in the House of Commons, just a few weeks ago.
I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has been prepared to listen and to respond. It is a tribute to him that he has worked diligently to ensure that we could make some progress. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, with whom I have had considerable negotiations, to not allow us to make the perfect the enemy of the good. With the amendments I am laying today, with the support of the Government, we are making genuine and real progress. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, tabled his original amendment. How could I not, as I signed it? Having signed it, I wanted to ensure that the Government were prepared to move. It is in that spirit that I am moving Amendment 35A and speaking to its consequential amendments this afternoon.
I ought to make it clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, were to push his amendments to the vote and they were carried, my Amendments 39A and 61A would automatically fall. Those amendments are about the consultation arrangements and the immediate progression that is consequent on Royal Assent to the Bill. That would be deeply regrettable, because all of us are aligned in wanting to make genuine and rapid progress in getting to grips with something that is dangerous for people with a range of disabilities and particularly for those with little or no sight. That is why I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that those organisations working with and for, and speaking on behalf of, people who are blind or partially sighted will be front and centre in that consultation.
This also affects cyclists. My attention was drawn earlier this week to a cyclist who came across one of these floating bus stops opposite the British Library. Its colour coding was so bad that, although he does not have poor or no sight, he did not see it and his bike was wrecked. Fortunately, he was not hurt. My attention has been drawn again and again to the appalling example of what we are talking about just across Westminster Bridge. We really need to understand that this is an issue for everyone, not just for those with sight or motor difficulties, and that we need to get it right.
It is in that spirit that I move this amendment today. Crucial to the nature of what we do when we vote, Amendment 35A refers to how we approach ensuring the safety of individuals. It talks about the right
“to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”.
The commitment in the Bill to travel in safety requires a complete change to these floating bus stops. Emphasis is being put in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on retrofitting. I am entirely in favour of that, although the timing of how it can be achieved and the practicalities that need to be put in place should be explored, which is why I have been prepared to compromise. We need to make sure that we make progress quickly and effectively, rather than thinking that we will make progress only to find that we do not.
There are alternatives to completely scrapping the floating bus stops, in places where it is possible to ensure safety for all concerned. Some years ago, I did a project on the yellow school bus network in the United States—Donald Trump has not yet decided to do away with it. It has a facility which stops traffic once the bus itself has pulled in. I believe that creative and imaginative technology could do that, in circumstances where it is extremely difficult to reconfigure what exists in relation to how people reach the bus or alight from it. There are ideas which we can make work, with a little thought and innovation.
In that spirit, I hope to have the reassurances of my own Front Bench—both on the nature of consultation and on the speed with which we will operate in giving the guidance and ensuring that the information is then collected, collated and published, and that authorities are therefore held to account, not least around what I describe in Amendment 35A if it is passed and added to the Bill, and therefore becomes applicable and enforceable—and that we actually can make progress this afternoon. Again, I thank everyone who was on to this long before I was. With some temerity, I commend this set of amendments in my name.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it may be convenient if I inform the House that we have a number of sight-impaired visitors with us in the Gallery. To increase the inclusivity of their experience, it may be convenient for noble Lords to identify themselves when they speak. To that end, I am Lord Holmes, a Conservative. As with all moves of an inclusive nature, everybody benefits. I am sure that a number of Members are now going, “Ah, so that’s Lord Holmes”.
It is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has been and continues to be a role model for millions, not just in the UK but around the world. He was a first-class Secretary of State and a man who has transport in his bones, right back to the excellent bus subsidy scheme that he introduced when he was running Sheffield.
I want to speak to Amendments 36 and 38, which are in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for co-signing them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, regrets not being able to be with us for these discussions, but she was insistent that I made her support clear. She gave me a lot of evidence from her personal experience and what others had relayed to her about floating bus stops. I also thank all the organisations which have been campaigning on this matter since the inception of floating bus stops.
Perhaps it would also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I gave a brief description of what floating bus stops are. In essence, you take a bus stop and move it some way into the carriageway, at a distance from the pavement and with a cycle lane running behind it. Similarly, there are bus stop bypasses—another design. In many ways, it is the name “bus stop bypass” which gives us the greatest clue as to how these parts of our public realm came into being. For most of us, we are not bypassing the bus stop at all; we are simply barred from accessing the bus stop.
I have described floating bus stops and bus stop bypasses, but what are they in reality for blind people, wheelchair users or parents with pushchairs—any of us who do not want to take our life in our hands crossing a live cycle lane? So-called floating bus stops are dangerous, discriminatory and a disaster for inclusive design. They are dangerous by design, prima facie discriminatory by design and disastrous for inclusion by design. They are built to fail and bound to fail. Why? They are an overly simplistic solution to a relatively—I emphasise relatively—complex issue. They could have never solved the issues because they were not predicated on being inclusive by design and ignored the concept of “nothing about us without us”. They say nothing about accessibility.
On my Amendments 36 and 38, perhaps I should first say what these amendments are not. They are not anti-cycling. I am pro-cycling—pro-cycling for all those who can. But I am no more pro-cycling than I am pro-pedestrian, pro-bus passenger or pro-parent with pushchair—in short, I am pro-inclusion.
If we have a continuation of these so-called floating bus stops, we will have a continuation of a lack of public transport in this country. We will have transport for some of the people some of the time. Much more concerningly, we will have transport for some of the public none of the time.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support those two amendments. For the benefit of those with sight impairments, my name is Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and I am from the Green Party —yay.
I have been working for three decades or more on the issue of safety on our roads and road danger. I do not know whether that pre-dates the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but it seems like a very long time, and it has been a very long slog. I have worked with amazing campaigners of all kinds. I have to admit that when I started, I was concerned primarily with cyclists. At the time we had a lot of cycling injuries and deaths and relatively few cyclists; I wanted to get more people cycling, get them off buses and out of their cars and make London cleaner—get the air cleaner with fewer cars. That was my driver at the time. Obviously, as I continued working, preventing deaths and injuries of all kinds—of walkers, cyclists and drivers themselves—became paramount.
When floating bus stops were first mentioned, I thought, “What a fantastic idea to get the cyclists away from the heavy vehicles and buses”. It seemed like a really good idea and I was a huge fan, but I have now seen the light. I have examined particularly the two bus stops over on the far side of Westminster Bridge. They are quite interesting, because one of them is awful—absolutely dreadful. I have almost got mown down by a cyclist there, and I am fully sighted and fully mobile. The other one just about works most of the time, so I can see that there is an option for making all the floating bus stops we have viable. The one on this side is next to St Thomas’ Hospital, and it has a much better layout, better visibility and so on. Also, cyclists zooming up the bike lane perhaps realise that there are people crossing into St Thomas’ who may not be as mobile or as able, and so perhaps they take greater care. So I can see the possibilities, but—and this is a really big but—we have to accept that many of these bus stops are flawed, and we need a huge look at them all to make sure that they are viable.
It is wonderful that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is able to agree to these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I also thank the Minister for the 30-second chat we had in the corridor earlier today—it was very beneficial. This is a step forward, but it is just not far enough. Having lived this for 30 years, I really feel that we have to do something bold and dramatic. There are other ways to traffic-calm, which is what I am aiming to do. We could, for example, tax SUVs. These monstrous vehicles are extremely dangerous; they make people inside them feel incredibly safe, so they drive differently—they are also difficult to park and so on. We need better roads policing. We have some at the moment, but it goes through phases of being very good and then not so good. Of course, we also need good planning; that is paramount.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am a big fan of inclusion—as I get older, I realise that I am more interested in inclusion than when I was younger. You cannot justify limiting one group’s opportunities by giving another group more opportunities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will press his amendment to a vote and that we can show the Government just how much we care about the issue.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 36 and 38 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and his co-sponsors. I thank them for their powerful speeches. For the benefit of our visitors, I should explain that I am Lord Shinkwin and I have a disability.
I apologise to your Lordships’ House as this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I am doing so for a particular, personal reason as a disabled person. I have run the very close risk of almost being run over on nearby pedestrian zebra crossings three times in the past five days—last Friday evening, this Monday and as recently as yesterday, all in perfect visibility and all by people cycling at speed. In each case, the cyclist had seen me in my wheelchair as I started to cross and chose not to apply their brakes. One interrupted a phone conversation to shout an apology outside Clarence House as she cycled past, which was really good of her. In another case, when I appealed very politely to a cyclist on an e-bike to stop, he looked at me with utter contempt.
The only thing that saved me, and enables me to be here today, is my sight. It is my only form of protection, because I can confidently say that I would not survive a collision. How much worse must it be for those people who do not have that protection, which we take for granted if we do not have a visual impairment? That is why Amendments 36 and 38 are so important.
Although I am speaking for the first time today, I read very carefully the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s amendments in Committee. I want to make clear that I do not question the Minister’s sincerity or commitment, both of which I welcome. My concern is that, notwithstanding the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the Minister’s department does not recognise the clear and present danger that disabled people, including those with both mobility and visual impairments, are facing today.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I believe them to be reasonable and to show responsibility for those we have heard about today. In the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has seen the light, I hope that the Minister will join her and agree to these amendments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, it is Lord Wigley, for the benefit for those who cannot follow the monitors in the House. This is the first time I too have intervened on this Bill. It is sometimes difficult for those of us in small parties to cover all the legislation, but the issues contained in this Bill have been very close to my heart for a long time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for his contribution to this, because he has certainly brought a dimension to our understanding.
I am intervening now rather than earlier because, at a meeting held within these premises a week or two ago, we were shown films of the disastrous results when those trying to get on buses, or indeed those who are cycling, have to cope with the layout at bus stops in certain areas. They were really disturbing films; it was frightening just looking at them. We have to make sure that this sort of situation cannot persist.
A moment ago, someone asked, “What if these issues had been going on for 40 years?” They have been going on for longer than 40 years. In 1981, I introduced my own Disabled Persons Bill in the House of Commons, which became the Disabled Persons Act. Part of the Act was to do with the safety of the visually impaired on pavements, with regard to potholes, works on the pavement being undertaken by local authorities, et cetera. The question of disabled people’s safety arose and, even then, it was seen in the context of the social definition of “handicap”, which is the relationship between a disabled person and his or her environment. We may or may not be able to do very much about the basic disability, but we can certainly do something about the environment. Therefore, the responsibility for ensuring that a disability does not become a handicap rests in the hands of those who control the environment. This is classic example of just that.
I am very pleased that amendments have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Holmes. I only wish that they could all be amalgamated into one; that may be a challenge for the Government. I hope that we can make progress today in that direction. However, if we cannot, or if only the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, find their way forward, I very much hope that the Government will commit to keeping this under review—and in terms of months, not years—to ensure that the arguments put forward so forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are not lost and that we make progress on this issue, to make sure that those who have been suffering do not have to suffer in future.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I am Lord Hampton from the Cross Benches and I will speak to Amendments 36, 38, 39 and 39A. I am genuinely conflicted on them. On the one hand, I would like to see floating bus stops stop immediately; on the other, I believe that the Government would be far more sympathetic to the much more gradual approaches of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says.
In Committee, I described floating bus stops as democratic: they are dangerous for everyone. Apart from the obvious victims—those with limited sight or mobility—the bus stops are so dangerous because there are two separate pavements that make them look safe. In fact, it is the crossing between the bicycle lane and the pavement that is the problem. No one is designed to look over their shoulder and that is usually where the problem comes from. E-bikes are supposedly capped at 20 miles per hour.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My noble friend has pointed out the correct figure. I am not sure what the European and Commonwealth speed record for bike-mounted corporate lawyers in Lycra is, but I am sure it is well over 30 miles per hour. When bus passengers are trying to catch a bus—perhaps at night or when it is raining—we are expecting them to cross a cycle path without incident.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, suggested, there is a solution. I catch a bus from London Bridge daily. There is a cycle lane across the bridge which ends to allow buses to pull into the pavement to pick up passengers and drop them off. Cyclists know to go round the bus, bus drivers know how to pull in gently and passengers do not have to cross traffic or a cycle lane. I have seen no incidents or near-misses in my nearly three years of travel from there.
Floating bus stops are a laudable attempt to make life for cyclists safer—but, in fact, they put everyone in danger. They are a huge mistake and legislation to remove them must be in the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak as a cyclist—one of the first to do so in this debate. I cycle regularly to your Lordships’ House and many other places. I agree that some of the floating bus stops that noble Lords have described, especially around here, are awful—but others are quite good. The problem is that the danger for cyclists going round the back of a floating bus stop has to be measured against the danger of overtaking a bus that is trying to pull in in front of you, because you do not know how many other cars, lorries or buses will overtake you on the outside. I do not have any figures for how many people have been killed or injured by overtaking buses as they pull into bus stops, but it is significant. We need to look at this in a balanced way rather than just saying, “Get rid of floating bus stops by all accounts”.
As noble Lords have said, the floating bus stops on Westminster Bridge are awful, but, leaving the design aside, it does not help that the cyclists cannot go in the cycle lanes there because there are too many tourists. We are talking about too many people wanting to use too much road space, but it does not always work. Coming back the other way by St Thomas’, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, it is much easier.
For me, crossing from a pavement to a floating bus stop—with a ramp, I hope, as opposed to a step—is not very different from crossing any other road with a cycle lane and finding that the cyclists are not stopping or obeying the light. We need a proper design that works, rather than rushing into a series of different ones that may or may not work.
I have cycled quite often on the continent and I have given examples of what happens in Berlin, which is the most wonderful place to cycle. First, there is a pavement—the footpath—then there is a cycle lane, and then there are one or two traffic lanes. What happens if there is an obstruction on the cycle lane due to a building site or something? The traffic lanes are reduced from two to one to allow the cyclists to travel and overtake safely—ditto with the pedestrians.
The biggest problem—this came up in the Question from the noble Baroness yesterday—is that people do not comply with the law and there is no enforcement, whether that is enforcement for cyclists and scooters, electric or otherwise, or for freight cyclists. I find that cyclists with freight on the back have a particular habit of rushing around and not obeying red lights. I do not know why; most of us obey red lights, but these freight cyclists make a habit of going diagonally across and hoping for the best. One of these days people are going to get killed.
I love the London cycle routes that have been put in over the last 10 years—most of them are very good. However, you can go out the A10 towards Stratford and see the different designs of bus stops, cycle islands and other types of arrangements for the bus to pull over in front of you, and each one is as dangerous as the other—you have got to be very careful.
I cannot support any of these amendments, but I urge the Minister to agree to commission a proper study of how best to align the needs of pedestrians, disabled and blind people, tourists—who do not, I think, understand what “stop” means—cyclists and other road users, and combine it with enforcement. Until we get some enforcement, such as that in Germany, Belgium, Holland and even Paris now, we are going to get more of these debates, which, while very interesting, are not solving the problem.
With the very large increase in the number of cyclists using the road network now—noble Lords may have seen the cycle route along the Thames from here, going eastwards—I feel quite frightened on that lane in rush hour, because there are so many of them going along and they are going quite fast. We can debate whether it is good for a cyclist to be frightened of other cyclists. Things will change, but we have got to be very careful before we start moving infrastructure without being quite clear as to the benefits to each class—if we can call it a class—of user, to make sure that we get it right and that we do not get, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, the conflict from safety. Safety is the be-all and end-all, and it must start there, but enforcement is one of the most important things.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I support the intention behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I agree very much with the broad thrust of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, particularly about enforcement. I have cycled many miles on the bicycle paths in central London, and indeed I experienced a serious injury when a runner ran into me on the Embankment, at the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was talking about, going from here to Waterloo Bridge.
I accept that floating bus stops are frightening to pedestrians, but, as was pointed out, they are also extremely frightening to cyclists. As many people have commented, the one on the far side of Westminster Bridge is particularly awkward. Cyclists confront people getting on and off buses, who have no knowledge about the complicated configuration of the footpaths, bicycle paths and islands; this is particularly the case for visitors, who often seem to be completely confused. On the other hand, a decision to force cyclists to ride around a bus carries different but extremely serious risks.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly, if I may. One group of people involved in these discussions has not been heard from so far, and that is the bus drivers themselves. I have no financial interest to declare these days in these matters, but over the years I have worked either as a consultant, director or chairman for three different bus companies. When you talk to bus drivers about their daily problems, you find that their views about cycle lanes are well worth listening to. Many of them say that they do not open the doors sometimes until they have checked the cycle lane to their nearside mirror.
Although it is not very popular to say so—I do not wish to fall out with my noble friend Lord Berkeley—it is about time someone acknowledged the fact that a substantial number of cyclists on our roads are, quite frankly, maniacs.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I made an exception for my noble friend straight away, because I knew he might react.
Stand on the corner of Parliament Square and watch them. There are cycle lanes and traffic lights, and a substantial number of cyclists ignore the traffic lights—because in their view nothing is coming—and set off around Parliament Square. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the amendment that we are discussing. We ought to acknowledge the fact that, unless there is some sort of enforcement, as my noble friend suggested, the minority of cyclists who behave in that way will continue to behave like that.
Mention has been made of the cycle lanes and the two bus stops at the other side of Westminster Bridge. Only last week, I happened to be crossing the bridge in the direction of travel towards the House, on the left-hand side, where the cycle lane and the bus stop is, in the opinion of earlier speakers, supposedly the safer of the two. There are Belisha beacons and a zebra crossing by the bus stop—a very small one that crosses the cycle lane. As I crossed one day last week, I had to dodge a cyclist—in fact, there were two of them, pretty close together—who ignored the Belisha beacons and the zebra crossing. I said something to the first one as he passed—I presume the second one was associated with him. He responded, and I do not know exactly what he said, but the second word was “off”. That sort of behaviour is all too predictable for a certain minority of cyclists.
I hope that, when he comes to respond, my noble friend the Minister will acknowledge the very real fears, particularly of those who are partially sighted or blind, and that these problems are real and that it is long past time that we tackle them.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, for those who are listening to this debate, my name is Baroness Pidgeon from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Accessibility and safety have been strong features of the debate, at Second Reading, in Committee and today. I am pleased that the amendments before the House today would help make progress on floating bus stops. I was struck, by the debate in Committee and from discussions that I have had with visually impaired, blind and disabled campaigners, about the accessibility of the bus network. My Amendment 39 is a new amendment that seeks to ensure that all existing floating bus stops or bus stop bypasses are made safe and accessible within a reasonable period. Unlike the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has spoken to, it does not prohibit all floating bus stops, but it does seek to ensure an assessment of the current state of these types of bus stops and a programme to retrofit stops which do not meet the highest safety and accessibility standards.
Floating bus stops tend to be on busy main roads where cycle lanes have been added. They have been designed to tackle a serious issue of cyclist safety, particularly at the point where buses pull out into the main traffic. I want us to remember why this different design of bus stop was created, with absolutely the right intentions: to help prevent collisions with cyclists, and deaths, on these busy main roads. Clearly, in some locations, as we have discussed today, they have not been designed in a way that keeps everyone safe. Bad designs that mean passengers have to board or disembark a bus from or directly into a cycle lane are not acceptable. We have all seen good examples of this infrastructure—and bad examples.
This amendment seeks more detailed guidance, which would ensure that cyclists were kept safe and that blind, visually impaired and disabled passengers were safe and able to access bus services. I hope that the Minister supports this aim. I have met representative groups and received correspondence from different sides of this debate. One thing that unites everyone is the need to ensure that these types of bus stops are designed to the highest possible standards of safety for all users. This amendment ensures that an assessment of current floating bus stops is carried out within six months and that a retrofit programme is then carried out within 18 months. This is a sensible way forward, which I hope that the House can support. It will ensure progress on this issue, about which we have heard loudly and clearly today.
Since tabling my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has tabled his own amendments, which I welcome. They would allow progress in the way that my amendment seeks. Therefore, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government are minded to accept the noble Lord’s amendments. What assurance can the Minister give the House that the guidance for floating bus stops will be reviewed at pace for all local authorities, that local authorities will have to review their existing floating bus stops, and that there will be a retrofit programme for those that do not meet the guidance—particularly those that we have heard about so powerfully, where the island is just not wide enough and passengers are forced into the cycle lane simply to use the bus?
This has been a passionate debate from all sides of the House and we will all be listening carefully to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my name is Lord Moylan and I am the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—yay.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, knows that I have the highest personal regard for him, as I do for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. They both bring a perspective on this issue which I cannot share and do not possess. However, I do know something, from past experience, about the design and management of roads.
The essential problem is, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are locations where road space is a scarce resource. The way in which we choose to deal with this is by a sort of top-down allocation of uses, so that we say, “This is for the pedestrian, this is for buses, this is for bicycles, and this is for general traffic”. Inevitably, people are left dissatisfied, because these are almost insoluble decisions to make. They are a mixture of managerial and political decisions, and they are fundamentally questions of priority, and those priorities shift over time.
What has certainly been the case is that, in recent years, the priority has shifted substantially in favour of the cyclist. I think that the mood in the House today is that perhaps it is time to look again at the priority that should be given to pedestrians, and particularly to disabled pedestrians. For that reason, I will say that, while we do not object to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, if my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendments 36 and 38, we will support him.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister, I will turn to the amendments related to floating bus stops and accessibility. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these important points. I recognise the passion and sincerity of all those who have spoken. I say clearly that the Government acknowledge the problems that floating bus stops can cause. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. It is also about safety, including, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, have referred to, the safety of cyclists. It is also, as the noble Lord, Moylan, just said, about the allocation of road space, which in many English towns and cities is at a premium.
We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the department is working—at pace, for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to fill the gaps in our knowledge and evidence base. Since Committee, we have been exploring ways in which we can strengthen this commitment, and we have listened very carefully to noble Lords’ and other stakeholders’ concerns.
First, in the short term, we have decided to instigate a pause on the installation of the most problematic floating bus stop designs. These are the ones with shared-use bus borders, where the cycle track runs across the front of the bus stop, between the stop and/or shelter and the kerb. Noble Lords have referred to a number of stops in this respect, and I will refer to bus stop U on Brentford High Street, near the piano museum, where bus passengers get on and off directly into a cycle lane. The pause will be voluntary, as there are no powers enabling the Secretary of State to instruct local authorities on this. It will apply to any new installations currently at the design stage, which local authorities will be requested not to take forward. This does not require legislation, and the Secretary of State will set out expectations on this to local authorities as expeditiously as possible.
With regard to future modifications to existing sites, we will highlight to local authorities that existing funding is available to them to make these changes. Options include consolidated active travel funding and highways maintenance funding, and Ministers will encourage them to use this. Active Travel England will also be making available further funding to local authorities to enable them to retrofit existing sites on their network.
Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is similar to Amendment 39A tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, in that it requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on this matter. However, my noble friend has gone further in his amendment and stated that this guidance has to be in place within three months after Royal Assent. I fully support him on this matter: it is important that guidance is developed quickly to help solve this issue, and I know that partially sighted, blind and disabled bus passengers will appreciate action being taken quickly. This guidance will be better than local transport note 1/20, to which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, referred, because that is non-statutory, and it will answer my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s point about a proper study.
Amendment 39A also makes provision for consultation and includes the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as a statutory consultee. I agree that this is the right thing to do. I agree that any consultation on this guidance will also include other bodies of, or representing, blind and partially sighted people, and, more generally, disabled people, older people and those with additional needs. They are experts, as users of the network, and we want to be sure that they have had an opportunity to provide their views. Amendment 61A is a technical amendment that ensures that the new clause proposed in Amendment 39A comes into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I appreciate that we are not at loggerheads; we are talking about the way in which we can move as quickly as possible, in a practical fashion, to achieve a common goal. If noble Lords will forgive me for one minute, I had a vision of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I on a tandem, with him on the front and me clinging on as hard as I can to ensure that both of us do not end up in danger of hitting one of these floating bus stops.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned speed. I hope the Government will come back to that at some point, because it is a disgrace that there is no appropriate and proper speed limit for cyclists. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for clearly spelling out why my amendments go a long way, in a practical fashion, to meeting what the whole House wishes to achieve this afternoon. I thank other noble Lords for their kind words.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, from the Conservative Front Bench that I am sorry if we are going to divide on Amendments 36 and 38 because he will remember that the night before Rishi Sunak called the general election, we collectively reached a compromise on the Victims and Prisoners Bill with the Government. Had we not done so, the changes on IPP that have come in would not have happened. We did so—if I might use this expression—with our eyes wide open to the fact that we were marginally compromising with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and his Secretary of State, Alex Chalk, but we were doing so in order to make progress. It is in that spirit that I will move this amendment and associated amendments this afternoon.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance requiring—(a) buses to stop at the kerbside to allow all passengers to board from and alight directly to the pavement, and (b) stopping places to be designed such that all passengers can continue their journey without crossing a live cycle lane running through or on any part of the pavement.(2B) The organisations listed in subsection (6) must comply with the guidance issued under subsection (2A) when commissioning the design, construction or maintenance of a stopping place for a local service, or any facilities in the vicinity of a stopping place for a local service.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who brought such vivid and real lived experience to the debate, and all noble Lords who took part, in particular the Minister. I thank him for all his consideration and the time that he has put into progress on this. It is a rare and positive thing to have a Minister for Transport who not only understands but loves transport. He is surely a candidate for Secretary of State. Things would improve dramatically across the piece.
I also thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work that he has done on this matter. Progress has been made and I am very pleased that Amendment 35A and other amendments in his name will also pass, irrespective of what may or may not happen presently. The difficulty is, for all that has been said, that too much is still voluntary and lies in guidance. It could be pinned down far more. For example, the Government could do more, particularly on not providing finance for such schemes. They could have taken a different approach—rather than guidance, they could have taken a different legislative pathway. Similarly, it is worth noting at this point that, for those local authorities that do not abide by any guidance, judicial review will be the only route of redress for an individual. In essence, for the vast majority of us, there is no route of redress whatever.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but, to make more progress and in acting for inclusion by design, accessibility by all and public transport worthy of that title, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Before putting the question on the amendment, I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 36A or 61A due to pre-emption.
Lord Blunkett
“(aa) Transport for London;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies clause 25 to Transport for London.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies clause 25 to local traffic authorities in Greater London.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a full assessment of all existing floating bus stops to determine their level of safety and compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance.(2) The assessment must also identify any necessary retrofits to ensure floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.(3) Following the assessment, the Secretary of State must develop and implement a programme to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with relevant safety and accessibility standards.(4) The retrofit programme must ensure that floating bus stops are designed to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.(5) The retrofit programme detailed in subsection (3) must be completed within 18 months of the assessment’s conclusion.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess all existing floating bus stops for safety and accessibility compliance within six months of the Act's passage and to complete any necessary retrofits within 18 months thereafter.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, having considered the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, I will not move my amendment.
Lord Blunkett
“Provision and design of floating bus stops(1) The Secretary of State must give guidance about the provision and design of floating bus stops.(2) The guidance may, in particular, include guidance about—(a) matters to be taken into account, and the consultation that should be carried out, when deciding whether it is appropriate to construct or remove a floating bus stop;(b) the circumstances in which it is appropriate to construct or remove particular types of floating bus stops;(c) other considerations to be taken into account when designing floating bus stops.(3) The Secretary of State may at any time vary or revoke guidance given under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance given under this section and any variation or revocation of the guidance.(5) The first guidance given under this section must be published before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (6) The Secretary of State must consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and any other persons who in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is appropriate to consult—(a) before giving or revoking guidance under this section, or(b) before varying guidance under this section in a way which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, results in a substantial change to the guidance.(7) The following must have regard to the guidance—(a) a local transport authority (within the meaning given by Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000) whose area is in England;(b) Transport for London;(c) a local traffic authority (within the meaning given by section 121A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984), in relation to stopping places on roads in England;(d) a local highway authority (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980), in relation to stopping places on highways in England;(e) a strategic highways company (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2015), in relation to stopping places on highways in England.(8) In this section—“floating bus stop” means an area in the immediate vicinity of a stopping place for local services, which is designed—(a) for use by people accessing the stopping place, and(b) so as to incorporate a cycle track (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329 of that Act));“local service” and “stopping place” have the same meanings as in the Transport Act 1985 (see sections 2 and 137 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to give guidance to certain authorities about the provision and design of floating bus stops.
“Duty to provide information to Secretary of State(1) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 25(6) or (Provision and design of floating bus stops)(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must, when requested to do so, provide to the Secretary of State—(a) details of how they have complied with the duty, and(b) any other information relating to stopping places provided by the authority and used by local services that is specified in the request.(2) The request may specify the form in which, and the period within which, the information is to be provided.(3) The Secretary of State may publish—(a) any information provided under this section, and(b) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority have not complied with their duty under section 25(6) or (Provision and design of floating bus stops)(7), a statement to that effect.(4) In this section “local service” and “stopping place” have the same meanings as in the Transport Act 1985 (see sections 2 and 137 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an authority to provide the Secretary of State on request with compliance information relating to guidance about safety and accessibility of stopping places, or about floating bus stops. It allows the Secretary of State to publish the information and, if it appears that the authority did not have regard to the guidance, a statement to that effect.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am moving these amendments formally, but I just want to make it absolutely clear to the House and beyond that that vote does not defeat the progress that has been agreed by this House in terms of ridding us of the worst of the floating bus stops.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that the training will require a person to take steps to prevent crime or anti-social behaviour only where it is safe to do so.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this next group of amendments relate to Clause 27, on training for staff about crime and anti-social behaviour.
On Amendment 40 under my name, I thank noble Lords who in Committee highlighted the need for clarity on how new requirements could impact the safety of drivers and front-line staff. I know we all agree that the safety of everyone on the transport network is important, and this includes both passengers and staff. This amendment seeks to make particularly clear the importance of the safety of staff when preventing incidents relating to crime and anti-social behaviour.
It is important that staff are trained to assess whether it is safe for them to prevent such incidents but, to be absolutely clear, staff are not expected to physically intervene in incidents which should be dealt with by enforcement authorities, such as the police. I have previously stated that we are not expecting bus drivers to leave their cab in order to prevent incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not appropriate and may put the driver at risk. However, drivers and other staff should be equipped to intervene in other ways, such as through understanding what to say to de-escalate a situation where it is safe to do so. Therefore, this amendment makes it clear that the training requirement is to assist staff in taking preventative steps only where it is safe to do so.
As I have stated before, the intention has always been to involve relevant stakeholders in the development of guidance which sets out the requirements of training on crime and anti-social behaviour, and the Government remain committed to doing so. I hope noble Lords will accept this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to see the amendment in the name of the Minister. I pointed out at Second Reading, and again in Committee, that the drafting of Clause 27 was, frankly, absurd, dangerous and misleading, in that it raised public expectations about what drivers are able to do in handling crime and anti-social behaviour that were completely unrealistic and unfair to the drivers. I have an amendment in this group which elegantly and beautifully addresses the matter; the Minister’s is more brutal, but it does the job, so I welcome it.
There is a further amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. Unfortunately, he is not in his place to speak to it, but the suggestion that trade unions should be consulted about the content of training overall seems to me unobjectionable, so I am sad not to see him here in his place.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I turn to my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 41. I appreciate that the intention of his amendment is to ensure that the views of bus workers are considered when developing the training that they are required to take. I agree that this is important, but I am not convinced that placing a requirement on individual public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training to be undertaken by their employees is the best way to go about it. This would place an undue burden on operators and likely delay the implementation of training, while resulting in inconsistency in staff capability and service provision, which is in the interests of neither bus workers nor passengers. I have already explained that we will involve relevant stakeholders in the development of guidance covering training. This includes ensuring that the views of bus staff and their representatives are fully considered. We remain committed to this and believe that we can set clear and realistic direction about what the training should entail and the expected outcomes.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 42. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment —I am not sure that I should thank him so much for regarding my own as brutal, but his amendment is clear. I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group and hope that the House accepts the amendment tabled in my name, which is intended to clarify the policy intention of Clause 27.
“(3A) Where regulations made under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(3B) In subsection (3A) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations requiring holders of PSV operators’ licences to keep records relating to their compliance with the training requirement do not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.
“(1A) Where regulations made under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations requiring carriers and terminal managing bodies to keep records relating to their compliance with the disability training requirements do not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.
“(za) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in clause 29(1A), inserted by my amendment to clause 29, page 29, line 12, and is consequential on that amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments of clause 30 at page 30 line 24 (first amendment) and page 31 lines 10 and 11, provides for the requirement to use zero emission buses to apply to the local services in England set out in my second amendment at page 30 line 24.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
These amendments cover provisions relating to zero-emission buses. Those tabled in my name—Amendments 46 to 49—amend Clause 30, which will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services, from a date not before 1 January 2030. I would like to attribute these amendments to the late Baroness Randerson, who worked tirelessly to ensure that the environmental benefits of bus services are fully realised; she continued, quite rightly, to push consecutive Governments to do more. They also address issues raised eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in Committee.
Amendment 47 widens the scope of the current drafting to include all local services run under franchise schemes and local services in London. Therefore, all registered and franchised services, which includes those that are commercial, tendered or operated by local authority bus companies, are captured by the measure. This amendment will enable the carbon-saving and air-quality benefits afforded by the transition to a zero-emission fleet to be fully maximised. It will ensure that all areas of England are included and that the benefits of the transition to a zero-emission fleet are felt nationwide.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 51 concerns the matter to which the Minister has just referred. I speak as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee—though of course I have no licence to speak for the committee. None the less, the Minister just reported entirely correctly what the committee said. We produced a recommendation on the crucial matter of the date by which the use of new non-zero emission vehicles would be prohibited. We took the view that this should be considered under the affirmative rather than negative procedure. I am delighted that, as a result of our representations, the Minister decided he is not going to have a fight about it but will agree with our recommendation. Although, as I said, I cannot speak on behalf of the committee, I am sure that we are all very grateful to him. When other Ministers are looking at the advice they get from our committee, they would do very well to take a leaf out of his book.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for these important amendments, which will ensure that cleaner zero-emission buses will provide bus services right across England. It was an anomaly that my noble friend Lady Randerson spotted before Christmas and raised directly with the Minister. Therefore, I am pleased to see it has been addressed here and that the Minister has acknowledged the part the late Baroness Randerson played.
Zero-emission buses will cut levels of air pollution and boost manufacturing while helping to accelerate the decarbonisation potential of buses. Some 55% of the public have said that they are more likely to travel by bus if they know it is zero-emission; therefore, it is a win-win situation. I thank the Government for responding so positively to our amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the Minister and acknowledge his decision to accept the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
In relation to this group, I gave notice to the Minister that there were two questions I was going to ask him, so that I could hear what he had to say at the Dispatch Box before we decided our attitude to these amendments. He has dealt with the first one already. It is very important that he has stated at the Dispatch Box that the measure is to apply to all local bus services, whether franchised, privately operated or run by a local authority bus company that is directly owned and a subsidiary, and that there is nothing here that discriminates against or disadvantages private bus companies. I have heard what the Minister says and I am grateful and glad to be able to note that.
My second was more in the nature of a question, and it is a very important consideration. We have a bus manufacturing industry in this country. We make quite a lot of buses and we are quite good at it. We employ a reasonable number of people in the manufacture of buses. When all buses are going to be zero emission, what assurances do we have that British industry will be in a position to make zero-emission buses in the numbers required, and that the outcome of this measure will not be a flooding of Britain with Chinese or other buses made overseas, to the detriment of good British jobs and businesses?
Understanding the department’s view on where this path is taking us in relation to manufacturing and employment is increasingly to the fore in the minds of people considering the net-zero journey, if I may call it that. So the views of the Minister and the department on that will be of crucial importance to us.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, does he remember that the biggest bus manufacturer in the United Kingdom for many years was Leyland buses? Does he remember what happened when it asked for a government subvention in order to stay afloat? The company then went bust. So, is it not rather strange that he should now advocate that buses should be made and built in Britain, when the last Conservative Government let our biggest bus operator go to the wall?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I recall that my childhood was punctuated by almost monthly demands for subventions from Leyland as an operator. They were often granted in exchange for improvements in productivity and manufacturing. Eventually, someone had to stop it—that was the simple fact of the matter. I was in that part of the world not so very long ago. It is sad that Leyland is not manufacturing buses and trucks, but it has left behind it the most splendid museum. I had an extremely enjoyable day looking at the marvellous old buses and lorries that can be found at the site, and I recommend it very much to the noble Lord when he is next there; it is an appropriate legacy. But let us now see what can be done to ensure that government policy allows existing successful businesses to continue and is not set to destroy them.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us how he managed to escape from the museum? I am amazed he was not kept in there.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Noble Lords might like to note that I was driving a Leyland bus last Saturday on Route 19. The vehicle is older than I am. It makes a lot of noise but it does not go very fast.
I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her remarks on this subject and for noting the work of the late Baroness Randerson on this. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked directly about supporting UK manufacturing. My colleague in the other place, Minister Lightwood, recently chaired the inaugural meeting of the bus manufacturing panel on zero-emission buses. The Government are focused on delivering on their promise to bring jobs and investment into Britain’s industrial heartlands by boosting bus manufacturing through investment in zero-emission buses, while also driving up passenger comfort and service reliability. The scale of this technological ambition, combined with the highly skilled manufacturers across the UK, will ensure that the economic benefits of net zero are felt by workers across the country, including those building and using buses.
It is estimated that over 60% of zero-emission bus regional area-supported buses—the acronym is ZEBRA, but I am blowed if I am going to use it—will be procured from UK-based bus manufacturers, supporting economic growth and jobs across the zero-carbon transport industry. We want to see UK-based bus manufacturers build on this foundation and stimulate innovation and skills development to ensure that UK- based manufacturers are able to compete with high-quality, affordable products.
The UK’s continuing membership of the government procurement agreement prevents the department requiring that grant funding should be used to procure British-built zero-emission buses. The UK Government have no role in the procurement of buses, because that is the responsibility of the bus operators and/or local transport authorities and local authority bus companies.
The department is not able to require bidders to design their procurement processes in a way that would explicitly favour UK bus manufacturers. We are, however, exploring whether there are any relevant factors that we can build into this requirement, which may help to encourage competitive bids from UK firms without compromising wider commercial outcomes and delivery.
The supply chain for zero-emission buses is global, with UK bus manufacturing sourcing key components, such as vehicle batteries, from foreign-based companies. Those companies are therefore expected to continue to play an important role in the supply of zero-emission buses for the UK market, both through supplying key components and on occasion exporting complete vehicles directly to the UK market.
We have seen no evidence that foreign bus manufacturers are undercutting UK bus manufacturers. Recent evidence suggests the contrary—that UK bus manufacturers are not being undercut, with prices being broadly comparable. When zero-emission bus regional area orders have gone to international bus manufacturers, local transport authorities and bus operators have indicated that those decisions have been based on build quality and timeliness, rather than price. International manufacturers win some orders, just as UK manufacturers are winning orders abroad, from Germany to Hong Kong. A healthy and competitive global market is a positive thing, driving up performance and quality and driving down cost.
I hope that that puts the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at rest about the Government’s intentions in respect of British zero-emission bus manufacturing. I shall not speak further, other than to welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on Amendment 51. I hope that your Lordships will welcome my other amendments for zero-emission buses and accept the need for all my amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for my amendment at clause 30, page 30, line 21.
“(1A) A service falls within this subsection if it is—(a) a local service which has one or more stopping places in England and which—(i) is registered under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985, or(ii) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 123J(2) or an exemption granted under section 123PA(1), or(b) a London local service (within the meaning given by section 179 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the requirement to use zero-emission buses to apply to local services registered under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985, local services in franchise areas and London local services.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for my amendment at clause 30, page 30 line 21.
“(4) In section 160 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2), for “or 141A(1)” substitute “, 141A(1) or 151A(2)(b)”, and(b) in subsection (3), for “or 141A(1)” substitute “, 141A(1) or 151A(2)(b)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations setting the date of first registration for the purposes of the zero-emission vehicles requirement to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
“Review of the operation of the English national concessionary travel scheme(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).(2) The review must assess—(a) the overall effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS for eligible persons, and(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme on travel 24 hours a day and seven days a week.(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the current English national concessionary travel scheme.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, for the benefit of those with sight impairments, I should declare that my name is Natalie Bennett, or Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I am the other Green—and we are doing an unusual bit of tag-teaming here, because I did the Second Reading of this Bill when my noble friend was off on medical leave. Interestingly, I raised in my Second Reading speech the issues covered by Amendment 52, which talks about the way in which the national concessionary travel scheme does not meet the needs of lots of people who very much need to be able to use it.
As I said at Second Reading, the restrictions mean that the scheme does not start until 9.30 in the morning. Many people have medical appointments that require them to travel before that time, and many people are providing childcare, often for relatives, which requires them to travel before that time. I described making concessionary travel a 24-hour event then as a modest investment that the Government could make. What we have now in Amendment 52 is a modest amendment, because it does not require the Government to do anything; it calls for a review of the scheme. I have told stories based on experiences that have been shared with me, particularly by some very doughty transport campaigners in Sheffield—but that is all anecdotal. This amendment would demand that there is a review of the scheme to see how it is meeting people’s needs and to help to uncover the costs of expanding the scheme.
This is a very simple amendment—a review amendment. It is not the intention to divide the House on it, but I hope that the Government will take it on board and I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 58, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, regarding the recording and sharing of data about assaults on the buses.
For the record, I declare my interest as chair of Amey, as set out in the register. Our involvement with buses is primarily collaboration with councils, such as Kent County Council, to use bus CCTV cameras to identify and capture data on road defects, such as potholes and cracks, to improve overall road maintenance. To avoid any conflict, as the Minister knows, I have restricted myself to speaking only on matters that impact transport which are outside any commercial involvement. It was for that reason that I spoke earlier during the Session in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her advocacy of long-standing issues that face disabled people on transport, particularly trains, about which I feel very strongly.
I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, whose knowledge of transport issues is greater than that of anyone else in this House—even more so than my noble friend Lord Moylan—and whose advocacy of reform and improvement from a position of unparalleled professional expertise makes the transport debates in your Lordships’ House among the best in Parliament. With that glowing tribute, I hope that he will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley.
From my experience in another place during my years representing the people of Lewisham East, I know that assaults on the vulnerable, particularly women, on buses, especially at night, was a serious issue, as evidenced in representations made to me in my constituency advice bureaux. These incidents ranged from verbal harassment to physical attacks. To this day, such attacks continue to significantly impact women’s sense of safety on public transportation, especially at night.
It is unacceptable that, in this day and age, the vulnerable, the elderly and women still feel vulnerable to harassment on the buses. Yet when incidents happen, the levels of reporting vary by location and factors such as time of day, route and bus occupancy. I accept and welcome the fact that many bus operators have implemented measures to increase safety, such as installing surveillance cameras on some buses and in stations, employing more visible staff and increasing security patrols—although many drivers are, understandably, protected and out of sight from many passengers. I welcome the fact that promoting awareness campaigns to encourage the reporting of incidents takes place.
However, I believe—and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—that more can be done. Few victims know how to report assaults, whether the bus companies have established hotlines or whether support services exist specifically for this purpose. Ignorance creates fear. Relevant signage is too often close to non-existent. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is right to seek to add to the law to protect individuals from harassment and violence in public places. There is all too little, somewhat sporadic, documented evidence of assaults on women on buses in the UK, with various studies, reports and statistics seeking to highlight the issue.
Over the years, I have noticed that the British Transport Police reports take this seriously, and that some of its statistics include data on incidents of sexual offences. The Home Office releases some reports on crime in England and Wales, including some statistics on violent crimes and sexual assault, but without this legislative backing. Groups such as Stop Street Harassment and the Everyday Sexism Project collect testimonies and survey data from women about their experiences of harassment on public transport, providing qualitative evidence on the issue. Of course, the media can help, and research studies have examined the nature and impact of public transport harassment.
The first part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is commendable. It goes further than anything on the statute book to date. If passed, as I believe it should be, bus operators would be required by law to record and register all data about assaults and violent behaviour on their buses, and local transport authorities would consult unions about the data. This is a Government who support the unions as a growth sector and therefore I hope that there will be support across all parties for the amendment. In return, as set out in the second part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, the unions could add their voice to help create a legal deterrent against such incidents, which continue to damage the confidence of the elderly and all vulnerable groups who travel on the buses and affect the safety of women.
I hope the Minister will agree to this small, yet important, change in the law. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, I shall move the amendment when it is called.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading.
The Government have an admirable ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I believe this amendment would aid the Government to achieve this by ensuring bus operators recorded and shared all data about assaults and violent behaviour that had taken place on their buses. I focus my remarks particularly on women, as the West Yorkshire Combined Authority conducted a survey which found that only 41% of women feel safe catching a bus at night, compared to 68% of men. This fear means that women are unfairly forced to pay for taxis to be reassured of their own safety. Women have even spoken of questioning whether their clothes are suitable so as not to attract unwanted attention when using the bus service. No woman should have to be fearful for her safety on public transport. The noble Lord’s amendment would go some way to encouraging bus operators to tackle the issue of violence and harassment, and, importantly, give people the confidence to come forward and report incidents on the bus.
In 2021, TfL launched a campaign that sought to end the normalisation of abuse on its services by encouraging people to text the British Transport Police. It stated that it wanted to make it clear
“that it is never acceptable and that the strongest possible action will always be taken”.
We cannot continue with a situation where more than half of women under 35—including me—decide to drive or get a taxi instead of getting a bus or train because they fear crime or harassment. The bus service should be available for all to use safely and free from fear. I fully commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his amendment and I hope the Government will back it.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 57 and return to the topic of safety. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, both for suggesting the solution in Committee and for adding his name to my amendment. In Committee, the noble Lord suggested that buses could adopt a “Vision Zero” accident policy, just like the building industry. It did not occur to me until afterwards that this is exactly what Transport for London does.
I thank the Minister and his Bill team for the extremely collegiate way in which they have worked, and for the letter that he sent to noble Peers addressing some of my concerns from Committee. I thank him for guidance on the use of NEBOSH and IOSH, the updating of STATS19 in SCRICS, and the publication of clear safety data by the DVSA. The guidance will make this a safer Bill.
On my plans for this amendment to implement a Vision Zero programme, I was told that it could not be in the Bill because it was more of an idea than a concrete law—it was a vision. I consulted an external constitutional expert who said that it would work very well in the Bill because the meaning of the amendment is clear. The Government say the implications are vague. If the implications are vague, then it could apply whether it is in guidance or in the Bill.
The Mayor of London has committed to a Vision Zero action plan for accidents and lists the obligations—safe speed, safe streets, safe vehicles, et cetera—and what they entail. The mayor’s example and elaboration of details demonstrate that the principles can be given concrete application and should be in the Bill.
This Bill could leave this House a considerably safer Bill than it arrived. With these changes, it could save lives. I cannot see any reason why my amendment could not be in the Bill, and I appear to have considerable support in this. I urge the Government to accept the amendment and warn them that I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to add my support to Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am sorry that I did not spot that it was down in time to add my name to it. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness Owen have set out the case for it eloquently, particularly the fear of vulnerable people, women and older people in using buses at night, when there are often fewer passengers. I also think it is relevant not only to passengers on the buses but to members of staff, particularly drivers, who we know are at high risk, sadly, of verbal and physical harassment and deserve to be protected too.
I spend quite a lot of my time in this House talking about online violence against women and girls, but the rules we have talked about there should apply in the physical world as well. One of those requirements is that we should collect data to know exactly the scale of the problem. Without the necessary data, there is, as we know, a risk of under-reporting. Bus companies and the Department for Transport would then be at great risk of saying that there is not a problem, although we all know it exists, particularly those who use buses regularly. I hope that the Minister will accept this straightforward and simple amendment about encouraging the collection of data.
Finally, I am reminded of the Question I asked the Minister in this House on 24 February about violence against women and girls on trains. He gave a typically generous and fulsome Answer in which he agreed that this was both an issue and something the Government wanted to take very seriously. He talked about regular meetings between Department for Transport Ministers and Home Office Ministers, all to fulfil the Government’s stated ambition of cutting violence against women and girls. While the House has the opportunity to take this measure and call for data to be collected, I hope the Minister and the Government will be able to accept this amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 60, which would introduce a £2 bus fare cap, subject to periodic review. The Government’s official evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 cap showed a 5% increase in bus patronage outside London, out of a 13% total increase in the period. However, their own survey data implies a stronger effect: some 40% of people said they took more bus journeys when the cap was in place, and 90% of those taking more bus journeys said it was because of the fare cap. In Transport Focus’s research, 80% said it helped with the cost of living and 40% said their bus journeys were replacing those they would have made by car, so awareness of the policy and support for it are high.
The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. Do not just take my word for it; the DfT’s own bus fare statistics, published just last week, show a 4.1% rise in the cost of bus fares outside London between December 2023 and December 2024. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have the choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, there is a huge hole in this plan.
This amendment would allow for a £2 bus fare cap scheme to be set up and priority access to funds for those authorities that opted in to this scheme. Affordable fares, alongside franchising and enhanced partnerships, will truly ensure that our bus services properly serve our local communities. The Official Opposition last week told this House that the Conservative manifesto pledged to keep the £2 bus fare cap. It will be interesting to see this evening whether their words are genuine, but I hope Members across this House will support our amendment.
I want also to add our support for Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, to implement a Vision Zero programme for buses to improve safety in the sector. I look forward to the response of the Minister to the issues raised in this group.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who made a similar speech—in fact, almost exactly the same speech—in Committee. If you are on the fringes of government or in opposition, it is easy to demand reductions, whether of bus fares or something else. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats have made a virtue of such behaviour over many years.
I recollect that the Liberals were in government, along with the Conservative Party, from 2010 to 2015. Did they introduce a £2 or even a £3 maximum bus fare in those years? No, they did not. In fact, government statistics indicate that, every year between 2010 and 2015, bus fares went up by an average of 3.8%. Under the Conservative and Liberal Administration, bus fares increased in real terms by almost 20% over five years. Of course, the Liberals are not in government anymore, so it is easy for the noble Baroness to sit there and demand reductions from £3 to £2.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am ever grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snape—if only, on this occasion, for reminding the House that bus fares went down under the Conservative Administration, ending with £2 as the maximum fare cap.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to call our good faith into question. My concern about her amendment is not that she wants to continue to promote this excellent Conservative policy, which we would have implemented had we been elected; it is with its practicalities. It is a pity that there is not a proper opportunity to interrogate it now, but I find the notion of a voluntary £2 fare cap appearing in statute very strange, especially on an unfunded basis. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say about it.
I will briefly speak to my Amendment 59 before turning to other amendments. I do not intend—if noble Lords will forgive me—to address every amendment in the group, partly in the interests of time; I hope that is not rude of me. My Amendment 59 concerns the fact that last year Louise Haigh, the then Secretary of State for Transport—in, I think, her very last official action before she sank into political oblivion—announced bus funding for the country, to which the Minister has referred a number of times since. Three-quarters of that funding was given to local transport authorities on the basis of a completely new formula, which had never been consulted on and which nobody had been given any advance notice of.
When I protested about this at the time and asked for an explanation of or rationale for the formula—because distribution formulae are very important—the Minister said:
“The Government are entitled to make decisions about how they wish to spend money”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 127.]
That was the substance of his answer. That proposition is broadly true: we often ask whether the Government will spend, for example, more money on defence or welfare, or less on aid or transport. They are the big issues that the Government are elected to make decisions about. However, when it comes to the distribution of money to other public authorities—those pots having been decided—two other considerations need to be taken into account. The first is—although I am not attributing this to the Government—the possibility that formulae are manipulated to favour certain local authorities over others; the second is a simple obligation of fairness to local authorities that they understand how their funding is being calculated and how they are being rewarded.
My amendment seeks to require the Government to set out, in the near future, not only a formula but a rationale for the bus funding distribution, including some notice of its distributional effects as well as the alternatives that they may have considered. This would contribute greatly to good government and transparency. I do not propose to divide the House on the amendment, but I hope that it would have had support, because it would have acted as a very good example to many other departments.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Buses are dangerous. Somebody told me a statistic 20 years ago—it is one of those statistics that does not appear in regular series—that was so astonishing that I had to ensure that it was robust. It stated that, at least in London, 50% of women aged over 65 presenting at A&E had suffered an injury inside a bus. The reason is straightforward: if you are inside a bus with modern brakes and the brakes are applied, one can be thrown about the bus, including when going to a seat, coming from a seat or simply standing—many of us, I think, will have had this experience, although not all of us will have fallen over. Because those responsible for health and safety have made brakes sharper and more effective, as that would appear to make the bus safer, there is not always consideration for what happens to the people inside. That needs to be looked at.
It is also true that buses cause injuries to people outside. They sometimes have large mirrors that stick out. Have people thought properly about that?
I had some involvement in the construction industry—not directly, but in a non-executive capacity under various roles—and I was struck by the complete transformation that has taken place in that industry over the past 20 or 25 years. Some 30 years ago, it was expected that people would lose their lives on building sites or that they would suffer life-changing injuries, but a determination on the part of the industry to change that—to have a vision zero—means that, nowadays, a death or serious injury on a construction site is not only very rare but shocking and pored over, and people try to learn lessons from it. That attitude, which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, wishes to bring to the bus industry, is commendable. It perhaps requires a change in mindset—there are examples; the noble Lord drew attention to the Mayor of London’s activities—and it should be a national programme. If he wishes to divide the House on his amendment, the Conservative group will support him.
Closely related to that is Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, for whom I have a high regard, is not in his place and has not been able to speak to his amendment. Colleagues on my Benches have spoken very clearly about the importance of safety, not in the sense of being shaken around in a bus by the brakes but in relation to the threats, particularly to women and girls, of violent assault or intimidation on public transport—or, more specifically for today’s debate, on buses. Clearly, the recording of data to support responses to that should be mandatory and taken forward in the way suggested by the noble Lord’s amendment. That too is an amendment that, if he were here to press it, we would have supported—and we still will, in principle, if there are some means by which it could be voted on.
Finally, I turn to an amendment not in this group but debated earlier, which will be called shortly. Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, relates to an audit or review of bus services to villages. When it was debated, I said very clearly from this Dispatch Box—and I am very happy to say it again—that the Conservative Party is the party of villages. If the noble Baroness chose to divide the House on her amendment, there can be no question but that, on this occasion at least, the Conservative Party would stand solidly with her and follow her through the Lobby.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this final set of amendments covers a range of bus policy issues. I will first address Amendment 52,which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme.
The Government want everybody who needs it to have access to public transport and are committed to improving the system so that it is more inclusive and enables disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. In England, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations—such as the hours in which the pass can be used being extended—would therefore need to be very carefully considered. Local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations. For example, we have seen this in London, where individuals aged 60 and over are eligible for the 60-plus Oyster card, which entitles them to free travel on a number of services. Similar schemes exist in other parts of the country, where local authorities have chosen to provide specific support to their communities through offers that go beyond their statutory obligations. A review of the English national concessionary travel scheme concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel time of the scheme. We are currently considering the next steps on this. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 54 would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of making bus travel free for children. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money for taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people. Bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, youth concessions were offered by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside London. Local authorities have powers to introduce concessions or discounts for young people. We want bus fares to be affordable. That is why we are funding a £3 bus fare cap until the end of 2025. We continue to keep the affordability of bus travel under review. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
On Amendment 55, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for raising the idea of a national bus forum. I understand what my noble friend is seeking to achieve through this amendment. However, I assure him that my department actively engages with all stakeholders and has conducted extensive engagement in developing the proposals before your Lordship’s House today. The Government recognise the importance of working with stakeholders to ensure that bus services across the country serve the passengers and communities that rely on them. They understand that engagement with local authorities, bus operators, trade unions and community groups—to name but a few groups—is imperative to delivering the best outcomes. I assure my noble friend Lord Woodley that conversations with these groups will continue beyond the Bill. This is just one stop on the journey to better buses, and the department will use its convening power to bring stake- holders together in the interests of passengers, local areas and the industry. I therefore do not consider it necessary to establish a statutory body to duplicate work that the department has already undertaken.
Amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley, seeks to place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of the Bill’s provision on the ability of the Government to introduce collective bargaining for the local bus sector nationwide. I have explained that this Bill does not mandate a single bus operating model, and it will be for local leaders to decide what model is right for their area. These changes will not happen overnight. It will likely take up to five years for local transport authorities to franchise or set up a local authority bus company. Six months, as suggested in my noble friend’s amendment, is clearly too short a period of time to assess the Bill’s impact. The Bill is about empowering local areas. They will be best placed to engage with local stakeholders, including trade unions, as they work together to provide the best services for their communities.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed and careful response and thank all noble Lords who contributed to what has been a rich and rather lively and passionate debate on issues that really matter to bus users, whether they are able to access the bus at all because of cost and whether they are safe in the environment of the bus. I am sure many people will be pleased to hear that I will not run through every amendment, but I want to make a couple of comments in response to what the Minister said.
First of all, on Amendment 52 and the concessionary travel scheme, I am slightly encouraged by the noble Lord’s pointing to the Government giving consideration to a review—although he said that local authorities have the option of subsidising the general English scheme, and of course we know how incredibly cash-strapped local authorities are; I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I also take encouragement from the noble Lord’s response to Amendment 54, about a review of the costs and use of bus travel by children. The noble Lord said that the Government remain committed to exploring the issue; I encourage them to explore north of the English border to Scotland, where the Green-introduced free travel for under-22s has proved extremely popular and successful.
I will just mention very briefly the excellent amendment on Vision Zero from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Vision Zero matters to me much, for very personal reasons, and I think we should see it everywhere. I take the points that the noble Minister made about various safety measures, but Vision Zero is something beyond that. It means knowing that people will do the wrong thing, and creating an environment where that is not going to leave them dead or seriously injured. That is not just the same thing as safety measures, and it is important that that is understood.
Finally, I will also mention—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
—as was addressed by a number of noble Lords, the issue of reporting of assaults on buses. The Government have a target of reducing violence against women and girls by half. This is a method for doing it. As many noble Lords from around the House have said, this would be an important step, and I hope the Government will take it on board for the future. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 52.
“Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review provision of bus services to villages in England.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This amendment was debated earlier and we heard expressions of support, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hampton
“Implementing a Vision Zero programmeThe Secretary of State must work with bus service providers, trade unions, professional bodies, and appropriate training institutions to implement a Vision Zero programme within the bus sector, modelled on best practice in the industry, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to collaborate with key stakeholders to implement a Vision Zero programme for buses, aiming to eliminate serious injuries during bus operations and improve overall safety within the sector.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, the Minister made me very excited when he talked about the Government being deeply sympathetic to improvements to safety and Vision Zero increasingly being adopted by local authorities. He then gave the can an almighty kick down the road. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moynihan
“Recording and sharing data about assaults(1) Any bus operator which has entered into a contract to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership plan must record all data about assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their buses and share that data with their Local Transport Authority.(2) Local Transport Authorities must consult relevant trade unions regarding any issues of staff safety arising from the data collected under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require bus operators to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour on their buses and LTAs to consult unions about that data.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the Minister. Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, which I spoke to, is an important measure to address assaults and violent behaviour on the buses, especially against women, and provides a valuable role for the trade unions, so I seek to test the will of the House.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
“£2 bus fare scheme(1) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into the scheme.(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 19 of this Act.(4) The Secretary of State may review the terms of the scheme every three years from the day on which this Act is passed and amend it through regulations made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme capping single bus fares at £2, alongside the existing £3 scheme. The scheme will be subject to periodic review.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s word and I believe it is essential that the £2 bus fare cap scheme goes hand in hand with the existing cap. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Brinton
“Compliance with the Equality Act 2010(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 108 (local transport plans), after subsection 1(b), insert—“(c) ensure bus services which are subject to the provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 do not discriminate against disabled persons as defined by section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment links the Equality and Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) provisions in Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 to local transport authorities and local PSV bus services under both the Transport Act 2000 and this bill. It also clarifies that any bus operating under the provisions of this Bill must comply with the PSED.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful for what the Minister said the other day at the Dispatch Box about Amendment 61. I was not terribly happy with his response, but I will not test the opinion of the House.
Lord Blunkett
“(1A) Section (Provision and design of floating bus stops) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the clause about guidance on the provision and design of floating bus stops to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before adding an area to the area to which the franchising scheme relates.
“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before varying (without adding to) the area to which the franchising scheme relates.
“(ia) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before varying a franchising scheme in some way other than varying the area.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Wednesday 2nd April 2025
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 73-II Second Marshalled list for Report - (1 Apr 2025)
19:37 - Division on Amendment 47 - Ayes: 49 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 47 disagreed.
21:12 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 51 / Noes: 106 - Amendment 56 disagreed.
21:24 - Division on Amendment 59 - Ayes: 19 / Noes: 112 - Amendment 59 disagreed.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Mental Health CommissionerAfter section 142C of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—“Mental Health Commissioner
142D Independent Mental Health Commissioner: establishment(1) There is to be an office known as the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner.(2) The Office in subsection (1) must be established by the Secretary of State three months after the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.(3) The Office of the Mental Health Commissioner will be led by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State titled the “Independent Mental Health Commissioner”.(4) The role in subsection (3) is referred to as the “Mental Health Commissioner”.(5) The Mental Health Commissioner may appoint staff to the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner they consider necessary for assisting in the exercise of their functions in section 142E. 142E Functions of the Commissioner(1) The Mental Health Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the implementation and operability of functions discharged by relevant bodies and persons under the provisions of this Act, the Mental Health Act 1983, and the Mental Capacity Act 2025 particularly regarding the provision of treatment, care, and detention of people with a mental disorder.(2) The Mental Health Commissioner must publish an annual report on the use of functions discharged under this Act, which must assess—(a) the quality of mental health care treatment provided by relevant services;(b) the accessibility of mental health care treatment services;(c) the relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system;(d) inequalities of mental health care provision regarding protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010;(e) the use and effectiveness of detention measures under this Act, including but not limited to Community Treatment Orders, for the purposes of therapeutic benefit outlined in section 1(2B);(f) challenges surrounding stigma of mental health conditions;(g) the accessibility of advice and support to mental health service users, their families and carers on their legal rights;(h) other issues deemed appropriate by the Mental Health Commissioner.(3) In fulfilling their duties under subsection (1), the Mental Health Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (1), (2) and (3) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in promoting the principles in section 118(2B) of this Act.(4) Subject to any directions from the Secretary of State, the Commissioner may take action necessary or expedient in connection for the purposes of their functions.(5) This may include—(a) collaborating with health services, public authorities, charitable organisations, and other relevant entities, including NHS bodies, the Care Quality Commission, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman;(b) ensuring enforcement authorities and public bodies under the Mental Health Act 1983 have the necessary capacity and resources to adequately discharge duties under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act.142F Appointment, Tenure, and Remuneration of the Mental Health Commissioner(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for the appointment, tenure, removal, and general terms of appointment of the Mental Health Commissioner.(2) The Secretary of State may also by regulation determine the Commissioner’s remuneration, allowances, and pension entitlements.142G Examination of cases(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the examination by the Mental Health Commissioner of the cases of those who are detained under this Act receiving treatment by authorised mental health care providers.(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner to access and examine relevant data on mental health treatment provision held by NHS England and any other authorities the Secretary of State considers appropriate.142H Regulations(1) Regulations under sections 142F and 142G are to be made by statutory instrument.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the office of the Mental Health Commissioner and makes provisions for relevant duties and responsibilities.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 47 would establish a mental health commissioner for England. The role would fill a major gap in the operation of the Mental Health Act and the rights of people with mental health difficulties. I believe this role is essential in ensuring oversight and advocacy for people affected by the Mental Health Act.
Unlike existing bodies, the commissioner would have a strategic, cross-government focus working to promote mental health, tackle inequalities and be a powerful advocate for the rights and well-being of those living with mental health problems, who would finally have a voice at the top table. The commissioner would also play a vital role in the public sphere, tackling stigma and discrimination and championing policies that support good mental health across society. The commissioner would have the independence to comment on the implementation of the reformed Mental Health Act and any subsequent changes or issues that arise. International evidence highlights the impact such a role can play in improving outcomes.
I know concerns were raised in Committee that the commissioner would duplicate the CQC’s Mental Health Act responsibilities. I simply do not believe this is so. The CQC is an arm’s-length body that has a statutory responsibility to inspect and regulate health and care services and intervene in cases of abuse of people’s rights, and it has powers to tackle poor practice in providers. Its work is essential, but its ability to oversee implementation is limited and it absolutely does not have a policy advisory function. I welcome the announcement of a new chief inspector for mental health at the CQC, who will lead the inspection of mental health providers. It is long overdue. However, like the CQC, the new chief inspector will have no role to work across government to take a view on public health policies or their implementation and to speak publicly on them, so the roles of the new chief inspector and the commissioner in my amendment are separate and distinct.
The commissioner would complement the CQC in the same way as the Children’s Commissioner complements Ofsted. I was very pleased to hear that the Minister recently had a productive meeting with the Children’s Commissioner, including, as I understand it, a discussion on children and young people’s mental health. I look forward to hearing more about that. I am sure that the Minister understands the distinct role that the Children’s Commissioner has in championing the rights of children with mental illness and that it is separate from the role of Ofsted.
Finally, I know that some concerns have been raised about resources. I emphasise again, as I did in Committee, that I envisage the commissioner having a very small secretariat, similar perhaps to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner or the Victims’ Commissioner. I believe the latter has around 10 staff. Of course, the commissioner would prioritise their work sharply. For a small investment, I believe that the commissioner could transform the way government and public services support our mental health, bringing a deep understanding of mental health into the heart of government, with statutory authority and independence that will enable them to inform policy, support delivery and oversee progress. They can bring government departments together to make the best use of resources and advocate for mental health in the public sphere. I beg to move.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 47, so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. As the House will know, the establishment of a mental health commissioner was a recommendation of the joint scrutiny committee on the Bill, of which I was a member, but, disappointingly, it was not included in the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, I believe that a commissioner could be a voice at a national level, promoting the interests of those who are detained or are likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, together with the interests of their families and carers.
There will be a need for rigorous, robust and consistent oversight of the implementation of the Act, wider mental health policy issues and service development, particularly workforce capacity, over the next decade and beyond. The establishment of a mental health commissioner could ensure public confidence, transparency and accountability during that period.
However, since Committee, the landscape has shifted somewhat. First, throughout the passage of the Bill, as we have heard, the Minister has made the case that the CQC, as the regulator, already has responsibility for the range of activities proposed for a mental health commissioner. This view was recognised by the Official Opposition. I still have considerable doubts about it but, as we have heard, the CQC has now created the role of Chief Inspector of Mental Health, because it at last recognises the crucial importance of mental health services in supporting people to lead fuller, healthier lives, and the need for specialist expertise in regulating those services. The eminent doctor, Arun Chopra, has been appointed. I hope to meet him as soon as possible, to be clear about his role and the range of activities that he sees it as his role as regulator to undertake. I hope that may go some way towards allaying my concerns.
Secondly, and importantly, the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, has stated that, in future, he is determined to be directly accountable to Parliament for the performance of the health service—obviously, including mental health. To achieve that, he wishes to reduce arm’s-length bodies. As we all know, he has already announced the abolition of NHS England. Clearly, that will lead to significant uncertainty during the reform process, and the establishment of a mental health commissioner at this time would be unlikely to land favourably. It is clear to me that primary legislation might be required, yet again, to implement the NHS reforms that the Secretary of State is advocating, so Parliament may have a further opportunity to consider the new architecture of the NHS and then determine whether to bring forward plans for, among other things, enhanced advocacy and oversight of the implementation of the Act, and to support the policy development that a mental health commissioner, as we have heard, could bring to the table.
In the meantime, I will continue to take every opportunity to hold the Government to account, as the Secretary of State has assured us he will welcome. The Secretary of State should be looking particularly at the implementation of this Act and the capacity of the service to deliver it in a timely way. I will be looking at further developments of mental health policy, particularly the interface between health and the criminal justice system in the future.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support the introduction of a commissioner. There seem to be three basic arguments that suggest it would be a good measure to take at this stage.
The first is the proven value and quality of work done by other independent commissioners, particularly the Children’s Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, as already mentioned. The second is the need for a commissioner to oversee the prolonged implementation of this Bill when it is enacted and the wide-ranging scope of work to be covered by the new legislation. Thirdly, a commissioner will enable standards of good practice to be maintained and raised. The existence of a dedicated commissioner should in fact remove, or at least reduce, the need for periodic statutory reviews of specific areas of work and functions in the field of mental health.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I raised this issue at Second Reading.
A powerful case has already been made for a mental health commissioner, so I am just going to make one comparison here. At the same time as this Bill has been going forward, in the other Chamber I have been dealing with the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. An Armed Forces ombudsman was created, which in some ways has parallels with the Chief Inspector of Mental Health and the CQC. It was found that that was not effective or strong enough, and now the Government themselves are going for the Armed Forces commissioner model.
There is another parallel. One of the reasons why it is felt so strongly that there needs to be an Armed Forces commissioner model is that members of our Armed Forces do not have the same rights. They have certain responsibilities laid on them and are treated differently from other members of society, which is why they need a special advocate. The parallel with people who are potentially subject to the Mental Health Bill is obvious.
In the health space, I have been heavily involved over the years with the Patient Safety Commissioner, which was initially resisted by the Conservative Government of the time. Eventually the fight was won, and it is now seen to be a huge success. This is a model that we can see working and that is seen to be necessary.
The Government have expressed a desire to get rid of arm’s-length bodies and make decisions themselves. The Government devolve decision-making to those so-called quangos—the arm’s-length bodies—but that is not the case with the Patient Safety Commissioner; there is no parallel here. They are a person who is there as an advocate and to have oversight; they are not making decisions. I do not think the Government can shelter under that umbrella.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for, as others have said, the eloquent way in which she introduced her amendment.
I know this is a topic that noble Lords across the House feel strongly about, and I appreciate the arguments in favour of the creation of a commissioner. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said, it was a recommendation of the pre-legislative Joint Committee.
Having listened keenly to what the noble Baroness has said, and having discussed this issue with her and her noble friends, I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, when he says that the landscape has changed. We are now at a time when the Government are looking to reduce duplication and arm’s-length bodies—something that I believe a responsible Opposition should support. We believe it should not be necessary to have a new, separate, independent mental health commissioner.
We were going to group this amendment with the ideas about strengthening the CQC, but that has been ungrouped and we will talk more to it in the next group. When I had some conversations with those who supported the independent mental health commissioner, they said I should look to Children’s Commissioner as an example. I looked at the Children’s Commissioner; it does a great job, but it has a staff of 25, a temporary staff of 31, and expenditure of £3 million. That may not sound a lot of money but I wonder whether that amount of money could be better invested in strengthening the CQC. One of the things about any bureaucracy is that they grow and have more non-essential roles as other bits of legislation bring them in. I worry about the cost and duplication of functions.
I completely understand the argument from those who say that the CQC has not been doing its job and those who have criticised it for being ill-equipped. That is why we tabled our amendment, which will be discussed in the next group, about strengthening CQC functions. However, rather than saying all that now and repeat it in the next group, I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I believe there should be a comprehensive review of the CQC and proper accountability, and I hope we can achieve that without an independent commissioner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this fiercely and keenly debated proposal. Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, leads me to say that we continue to be of the strong view that the functions of the proposed commissioner, as set out in the amendment, would clearly overlap with the existing responsibilities of other organisations, most notably the CQC. I must respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness: the CQC has a statutory role in monitoring the Mental Health Act. It publishes an annual report that serves to drive policy improvements in this area.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can I just ask the noble Baroness a very quick question? Will the newly appointed person have a statutory right to call for papers and witnesses from other departments to deal with mental health issues, as a commissioner would?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot draw a comparison with a commissioner but I will be very pleased to answer the noble Lord definitively in writing.
Secondly, as announced by the Secretary of State, we are abolishing NHS England as part of the radical reforms we are making to the national health system to rid it of duplication, inefficiency and waste, so that vital resources can be redirected to the front line. On this, we very much look forward to the much-anticipated report from Dr Penny Dash on the wider patient safety and oversight landscape. Of course, as noble Lords will be aware, the 10-year plan for the NHS is being co-developed with staff, patients and the public. I believe these changes only confirm that creating a new mental health commissioner would be not only duplicative but completely at odds with the important and very live reforms that the Government and the CQC are making.
During the course of the Bill, including today, I have heard noble Lords speak passionately about introducing a mental health commissioner role akin to that of the Children’s Commissioner. I very much value the work of the Children’s Commissioner and, as I have said before, I do not accept that it is a valid comparison. More pressingly, following a constructive meeting last week with the Children’s Commissioner, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to, I can report that she is concerned about the establishment of a mental health commissioner. In her view, covering all aspects of children and childhood is a critical part of her role. This is because children see their mental health as indistinguishable from their wider health and experience of childhood. We discussed this at some length. The Children’s Commissioner’s view is that the proposed establishment of a mental health commissioner risks taking a siloed approach to the barriers and challenges that children face, and I feel it is incumbent on us to listen to that view.
I also reiterate that I am deeply concerned about the level of resource needed to take this forward, as required in the amendment, as was understood by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. This would be on top of the resources needed to remodel the healthcare quality and regulatory landscape to avoid the risk of duplication and waste. I can honestly say that I do not feel that this can be justified, particularly in the current climate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made comparisons with the Government’s plan to introduce an Armed Forces commissioner. This is a manifesto commitment that we are certain addresses an important and specific gap: the strengthening of support for Armed Forces communities to improve service life. Furthermore, we are talking about an entirely different set of responsibilities, aimed at different set of needs in an entirely different environment. So I have to say once again that I do not believe that it is a useful comparison with respect to Amendment 47. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and particularly thank other noble Lords who have contributed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for forgetting to thank her for adding her name.
The short answer is that we disagree quite fundamentally on this. I do not accept the argument that the Minister has just put forward that the comparisons that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have drawn are not good; I think they are very good. Of course, I understand that the landscape has changed. I understand that arm’s-length bodies, particularly large ones, have gone out of fashion and I understand the reason for that. I am talking about a very small body that acts as an advocate. I think that is different. I do not think it is something that the CQC can or will do.
I am pondering on what the Children’s Commissioner has said. I understand the point about children and their mental health being part of their wider experience, but we have to remember that a lot of the work of the mental health commissioner would be about adults who are being detained and whatever. We are not going to agree, so I suspect the best thing to do is to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Review and reporting on inequalities in Mental Health Act Measures(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Secretary of State or appropriate national authority must conduct a review, in consultation with relevant bodies with commissioning functions, on the use of treatment and detention provisions contained in the Mental Health Act 1983, broken down by race and other demographic information.(2) Having conducted a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State or appropriate national authority must publish a report on the progress made in reducing inequalities in treatment outcomes and the use of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 on people who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.(3) In this section “the appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to services or unit whose area is in England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to units or services whose area is in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to review and report annually on the use of treatment and detention measures under the Mental Health Act 1983, analysing data by race and other demographics to assess progress in reducing inequalities for those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 48 and 49 are in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding her name to Amendment 49.
As debated throughout the passage of the Bill, a primary driver of the review into the Mental Health Act was the shocking racial injustices in the use of that Act. The figures are well known to us: black people are disproportionately more likely to be detained and put on a CTO, and experiences and outcomes for people from racialised communities are, on average, worse. One of the main policy objectives set out in the Bill’s impact assessment is to
“reduce racial disparities under the MHA and promote equality”.
That is great but, given that, I have found it surprising from the outset that race and racial disparity were not mentioned anywhere in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes.
Instead, there has been an expectation that non-legislative programmes—in particular, the patient and carer race equality framework, which is a contractual arrangement—and some of the Bill’s broader reforms will reduce racial disparities without specific legislative requirements. I was grateful to the Minister for organising a helpful recent round table on reducing racial disparities. I learned a lot about the operation of the PCREF, if I might call it that; I will return to it shortly.
I believe there is currently insufficient collection and reporting of data on the experiences and outcomes of people from racialised communities under the Act. That in turn hinders the ability to scrutinise progress being made in reducing racial disparities. I know from our deliberations on Monday that further thought is being given to this and that new research is being commissioned. I very much welcome that, so what would my amendments do?
In brief, my Amendment 48 would require the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers
“to review and report annually on the use of treatment and detention measures”,
broken down by detected characteristics. This would enable us to understand whether these reforms are fulfilling their intended purpose of bringing down inequalities and to identify any further action needed. However, I firmly believe that this needs to be accompanied by Amendment 49, which would introduce a new responsible person role at hospital level in mental health units to tackle and report on racial and other inequalities, as recommended by the Joint Committee.
The Minister has expressed concerns that a responsible person role may duplicate existing roles and duties, such as those under the Equality Act. I do not believe that will be the case. Where there are people performing similar roles, they can take this on but, in many places, local PCREF leads do not exist. Where they do, they can take on the responsible persons role and that is absolutely fine. I think this role would actively assist providers in complying with PCREF and their Equality Act duties. It would also help to drive implementation of other measures in the Bill, such as advance choice documents and opt-out advocacy. These important measures are much more likely to succeed if someone is clearly tasked with ensuring that the mental health unit implements them, everyone knows who is in charge and who is accountable.
There is a model for the use of a responsible person at unit level, in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018. Under that legislation, the role is accountable for ensuring that the requirements of the Act are carried out. It is a senior role which may be carried out by an existing member of staff, such as a medical director or director of nursing. That would be a good model to follow. Giving an existing senior clinician with the necessary clout the responsibility to make things happen and creating clear accountability would really help to bring down disparities at local level.
The scope of the PCREF, which is NHS England’s anti-racism framework, is rightly much broader than the Mental Health Act. The responsible person in my amendment would be accountable for ensuring that the voices and interests of detained patients and their carers are properly reflected in the PCREF.
Finally, I was very grateful to the Minister for our recent correspondence following the helpful round table I referred to. I was very struck by the acknowledgement at that event of the big difference that a responsible person could make in enabling the patient and carer race equality framework to reduce both racism and racial inequalities in the way the legislation operates. As the Minister knows, I have made the—hopefully—helpful suggestion that some form of pilot of the responsible person role could considered at an appropriate time when the PCREF has bedded down and with some idea of how effective, or otherwise, it might be. Any assurances the Minister could provide would be much appreciated. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I have attached my name to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 49. As the noble Baroness said, like Amendment 48 it addresses one of the primary reasons for reviewing the Mental Health Act in the first place. Black people are over 3.5 times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people, and over seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. Their experiences and outcomes are worse. All of those are facts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, the Bill somehow does not seem to be addressing that. We are taking an overall systemic view but not addressing the issues of a particular population. The reason I chose to sign Amendment 49—we are going to come shortly to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, looking at the resources being put into the Mental Health Act—is that this is another way of putting resources into what everyone agrees is a crucial issue. This is a different way of allocating resources.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has made the case that PCREF is not the same thing. The Care Quality Commission does not have the same kind of situation. We are talking about people at a local trust level here; that is where the responsible person would be. As the noble Baroness said, if there is already someone, because of local arrangements, fulfilling this role, they can simply adopt this along the way. It does not have to be any kind of duplication. I note that the campaign group Mind very strongly backs this amendment. It delivers where we started from on this whole Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61, which calls for a review into the causes and consequences of the huge spike of diagnoses of mental disorders. It should also investigate the impact of this on the availability of services that we envisage treating people with a mental disorder that this Bill seeks to help.
If, in our best efforts to provide alternatives to detention for the severely ill, we hope to ensure that adequate care in community settings exists, we must look at the phenomenon that threatens to squeeze out those who most need access to such services. Implicit to this endeavour is to ask if, inadvertently, some aspects of policy set in train a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rebranding any deviation from the norm, troublesome behaviour, anxiety or even, according to the Government’s curriculum review, GCSE exam stress, under the therapeutic language of mental health has consequences. As Tony Blair has noted recently:
“you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life”.
Yet the young especially are prone to internalising the narrative of medicalised explanation and adopt an identity of mental fragility and illness. This can create a cohort of citizens demanding official diagnoses, NHS intervention and treatment.
This week, the media has featured the new book by Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist from Maudsley Hospital. In the book No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis, Dr Santhouse argues that it has become crucial to reassess what constitutes mental illness:
“so that we can decide who needs to be treated with the limited resources available, and who can be helped in other ways”.
He worries the NHS has
“buckled under the tsunami of referrals”.
Other state services are straining to the point of dysfunction as well. Despite the fact that the number of children with education, health and care plans has more than doubled in less than 10 years, parents are still desperately complaining about waiting for years for autism and other assessments. In other words, the demand is just galloping.
All of this is leading to at least 18 councils being at risk of insolvency, according to the Guardian on Monday. The present row over PIPs and the welfare system collapsing under the costs of ever greater numbers claiming disability payments for mental disorders is now a major political issue. I have been partly inspired to table this amendment by the Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s concern about overdiagnosis of working-age adults leading them to be “written off”, as he said. It is especially tragic that this is happening overwhelmingly among young people.
My concern, and the point of this amendment, is that this can skew NHS provision. A Savanta poll of 1,001 GPs for the Centre for Social Justice’s report Change the Prescription reported that four in five, 84%, of GPs believe that the ups and downs of normal life are now wrongly being redefined by society as mental disorders. Of those GPs, 83% now believe that anti-depressants are too easily prescribed to patients. But the GPs are under so much pressure from patients demanding treatment that they prescribe them. Similarly, in 2013 and 2014 just 1,800 adults were prescribed drugs for ADHD, but last year 150,000 adults were prescribed with ADHD medication. Waiting lists keep growing and lots of anger continues.
When I last spoke on this topic in the Mental Health Bill debate, the media picked up on it and I was inundated with emails, largely from people furious with me for challenging overdiagnosis; I had a tsunami of hate mail. There was even a formal complaint sent to the standards committee of the House. People said, and I understood it, “How can you say there is an issue with overdiagnosis when I can’t get a referral for myself” or “for my child” and so on. It is true that a GP cannot formally diagnose ADHD as it requires specialist assessments. The average waiting list for an ADHD referral on the NHS is now three years. This lack of formal diagnosis is not necessarily stopping service provision becoming overwhelmed and distorted, and I think this mood will have a very damaging impact on what we want this Bill to do.
I will finish with an apocryphal tale from the University of Oxford’s disability report from 2022-23. It reveals that the university has, under pressure from students, agreed to
“accept a wider range of disability evidence”
as a key to giving 25% more time in exams and the use of computers in exams. The university’s explanation is telling. It talks of
“a wider context of extensive and ever-growing waiting times for ADHD and autism diagnostic assessments”,
so it aims to reduce “administrative burdens and barriers” for disabled students.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she mentioned autism several times, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to remove autism and learning disability from mental health, where it previously was. In fact, I served on the Bill Committee, as did others in the Chamber, in 2005-06, when I was really opposed to autism being added to the 1983 Act. But it was added, and now it is being taken out, I am very pleased to say.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there is a piece of legislation about this on the statute book: the Autism Act 2009, which is being reviewed by the House at the moment. Autism is not some fad, something that people just make up, or something temporary; it is a lifelong neurological condition. I raise the failure to provide the right services for people with autism who are in that part of the spectrum where they need support. Not everybody does: it is a spectrum, and I quite agree that there are people on the spectrum who cope quite well with life, knowing that they have autism and not needing that sort of support. We have discussed that support a lot in the course of this particular Bill, and if you do not provide it where it is needed—this is the weakness that we are looking at in the current Autism Act—that leads to quite serious mental health conditions, including suicide. Of all the conditions that the noble Baroness mentioned, among the autistic community the suicide rate is the highest.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I genuinely appreciate that intervention. That is what I think too. It is precisely the inappropriate use of terms such as autism in relation to this overdiagnosis that concerns me, because it is too glibly used. That is part of what I am talking about. I absolutely want those people who need the intervention to get it, but my concern is if it becomes widely used socially, in the way that I did not want to go into in great detail, on university campuses or in society in general. I note the TikTok phenomenon of people getting diagnoses and that being used, and so on. My concern is that the label, the labelling process and the demand for diagnosis and treatment squeeze out the very people that the noble Baroness is talking about.
I too have spent many years trying to distinguish between autism and mental illness. It drives me mad that people do not know the difference. My problem is that, in the debate about this issue, they are very often all lumped together in a way that is medically not clarifying, but the demand for a medical label can mean that people are not even that choosy about which one they get. That is where I have tried to raise an issue.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I am very grateful for that response. The noble Baroness said that autism is different; it certainly is different, which is why it has its own Act of Parliament.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as I said on the previous group, I will start by speaking to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the ability of the CQC to effectively fulfil its role
“in carrying out its duties under the Mental Health Act 1983, and … in regulating the provision of mental health services”.
We have also included proposed new subsection (3), which would ensure that the review of the CQC’s functions will also include an assessment of whether it will be able to “effectively carry out” its new duties under the Bill.
As the Minister will know, in May 2024, Dr Penny Dash was commissioned to conduct the independent review of the operational effectiveness of the CQC. The full report, published in October, found
“significant failings in the internal workings of CQC which have led to a substantial loss of credibility within the health and social care sectors, a deterioration in the ability of CQC to identify poor performance and support a drive to improved quality—and a direct impact on the capacity and capability of both the social care and the healthcare sectors to deliver much needed improvements in care”.
In addition, my noble friend Lord Howe raised the issues arising from his meetings with the charity Blooming Change on a number of occasions. It has raised serious concerns about the CQC’s monitoring activity. We also know that the Secretary of State himself has claimed that the CQC is not fit for purpose, and that there are some fundamental issues with how the CQC oversees the mental health care system.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, one solution would be to have an independent mental health commissioner. Our solution is to call for a review of the CQC that specifically focuses on its mental health functions, to make sure that it does its job properly. The review conducted by Dr Dash comprehensively assessed the CQC’s ability to regulate primary, secondary and community care, but it did not focus on the sufficiency of mental health care regulation. I thank the Minister for the brief meeting with my noble friend and me earlier this week, in which she indicated that she would be able to give greater assurances on this particular issue. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on it, because this is part of our justification for not supporting the mental health commissioner: we want to see a strengthened CQC. We do not want duplication, but, in avoiding duplication, we want to make sure that the CQC does the job it is supposed to do. I hope I can get that assurance from the Minister when she speaks.
I have some sympathy with Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in line with the comments of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, but I also have some sympathy with what the Secretary of State said. We thought about whether we could find an appropriate amendment to table on this. We have to be very careful and sensitive about this issue: we in Parliament or officials in Whitehall cannot hope to pronounce on the issues individuals face in their homes or communities. It is about getting the balance right.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also spoke about the concerns about overdiagnosis, but we cannot just make a generalisation. We have to make sure that the mental health professionals are doing their job, with the right guidance, to ensure that we understand the needs of each individual. For that reason, I thought it was far too difficult—and it would have been insensitive —for me to lay an amendment on this topic. I did not want to go there for that reason. This is an issue that has to be discussed, but we have to do it in the most appropriate way—in a sensitive way that understands those who suffer seriously from mental health conditions.
Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. She and I have both raised the issue of racial disparities. In Committee, I went in very strongly on it—this is the issue that matters to me personally very much, and I shared some of my own experience of racial discrimination. I am as frustrated as everyone else that we still have not resolved the problem to this day; we still do not understand why, disproportionately, black men in particular are subject to detentions and community treatment orders. I asked questions at the time. What do we know? What do we not know? What are we doing to fill that knowledge gap? Once we have filled that knowledge gap, what are we going to do about it? Once again, I thank the Minister and her officials for the detailed meetings that they had with us when they laid out some of the things that they are doing. Could I tempt her to share with noble Lords some of that discussion and her letter, to assure us all that the Government really are on top of that issue, know what they are doing and are going to address these problems?
I was unsure about how effective the provision in Amendment 49 would be. I know that it is not very fashionable for politicians to say, “I don’t know”; we are supposed to make a firm decision one way or the other and agree or strongly disagree. But I wanted to reflect on whether that amendment would represent an additional burden on the healthcare professional, additional cost or additional bureaucracy. Given that we cannot, at this stage, say for sure how this will turn out, I support the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to pilot a scheme of a senior responsible person to address racial disparities. If we could pilot it in some places, it would give us the data to understand whether a responsible person would be effective in addressing those disparities. We all know that more needs to be done. We have had successive Governments of all political colours, and we still have not solved this problem. Let us be determined, as a House, whichever party we are, to tackle this problem of racial disparities, and let us make sure that we do it in the most effective way.
I am grateful for what the Minister said on Monday, but I hope that she will give some consideration to what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said about piloting a responsible person to see whether that works. Maybe it will not work, but at least we would have the data and evidence. I would appreciate the Minister giving a more detailed explanation of some of the research that is being conducted to fill that gap, so we can understand why there are still racial disparities and what Governments of any political colour would have to do to address them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this important and somewhat wide-ranging group of amendments.
I turn first to Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. We very much recognise that there are inequalities in the use of the Act between different demographic groups, and particularly that there are significant racial disparities. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has rightly expressed some frustration with the fact that we all find ourselves where we are today.
To those points, I would say that these inequalities are explored in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill. I reiterate how grateful I am to Peers who recently attended our round table to examine research findings and ongoing work to address racial disparities under the Act. I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, found it helpful—as indeed I did.
I offer the assurance that NHS England already publishes the Mental Health Act Statistics annual reports, broken down by ethnicity and other demographic information, including gender, age and index of multiple deprivation decile. We are improving the data through the patient and carer race equality framework, and we will monitor these inequalities as part of the overall monitoring and evaluation of the reforms.
Furthermore, as I announced on day one of Report, I commit to update Parliament annually on our progress with implementation, including racial disparities. I also committed to undertake further investigation into racial inequalities under the Act. As far as possible, we want to better understand where disparities are most significant across the patient journey, what drives those disparities and, most importantly, where we can most effectively intervene to reduce those inequalities. I very much look forward to keeping Peers updated on those findings, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has rightly requested.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt. Just to go back to my amendment on the CQC, one of the arguments for those who believed in creating an independent mental health commissioner was that they would be a voice for the patients. With that strengthened role for the CQC, where is that voice for the patients? That was one of the justifications for those arguing for creating a mental health commissioner. We decided not to support that because we thought that function should be part of what the CQC does. Could the Minister reassure us on that point?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
For me, it is about not just somebody speaking for others but getting those voices heard. I hope that the noble Lord and all noble Lords have heard my acknowledgement of the importance of that. Those with lived experience need to be properly heard and their voice amplified. I have given a number of reassurances on that point.
With that, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this group and the Minister for her responses. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for supporting my suggestion about a pilot for the responsible person. I have noted that the Minister has said that a pilot is not really necessary because what the Government are doing goes further than that. That is one way of looking at it, but I have to be honest and say that it is not quite how I see it. I completely take the point that we need to see what happens when the PCREF has bedded down. Let us see what it achieves, but if it does not achieve what we all want to see then we will need to think at that point about whether a responsible person would make the sort of difference that was being talked about at that very helpful round table.
I look forward to hearing more about the various actions that the Minister mentioned in relation to the CQC. I of course look forward to meeting the new chief inspector and will be interested to hear how they see their role, particularly the extent to which they think they are an advocate, providing a voice for people with mental health difficulties. This gets to the very heart of this Bill and the very reason why we have it in the first place. It is an incredibly important issue. We could talk about it for a long time, but we cannot. The hour is late and it is incredibly unfortunate that we have had such a truncated second day of debate. I know that these things happen but, given the importance of the topic, it is extremely unfortunate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Workforce sufficiency assessment by Integrated Care BoardsAfter section 142C of the Mental Health Act 1983 (inserted by section 51 of this Act), insert—“142D Workforce sufficiency assessment by Integrated Care Boards(1) Each Integrated Care Board must conduct a workforce sufficiency assessment every two years to evaluate whether it has sufficient workforce resources to deliver services under this Act effectively. (2) The assessment may include—(a) an analysis of current workforce levels across all relevant service areas;(b) identification of workforce shortfalls;(c) an evaluation of the impact of staff shortages on patient care and service delivery;(d) proposals to address workforce challenges.(3) Integrated Care Boards may consult any relevant personnel or organisations they deem appropriate when conducting the assessment.(4) Each Integrated Care Board must publish a report outlining its findings upon completing the assessment.(5) The first reports must be published 12 months after the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires Integrated Care Boards to produce a biennial report assessing workforce sufficiency, identifying shortages, and proposing measures to address workforce challenges in delivering services.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
It is funny how these amendment groupings work, is it not? I will speak to my Amendment 50 and say a few comments on Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, to which my name is attached.
We have talked a lot throughout the passage of this Bill, and rightly so, about the importance of how it is implemented and in particular about ensuring that sufficient resources are available to allow a much-needed expansion of community mental health services. To be blunt, unless this happens, the Bill just will not be implemented. To put this into context, those waiting the longest for elective community mental health care—both adults and children—have waited two years, which is twice as long as those waiting for elective physical health care. Parity is still a long way off.
I was very grateful to the Minister for sharing the Government’s implementation plan and for arranging a helpful discussion with her and officials.
My Amendment 50 would require integrated care boards to produce a biennial report assessing workforce sufficiency, identifying shortages and producing measures to address workforce challenges in delivering these services. We all understand that it will take time to enact the Bill’s provisions and that systems will take time to build capacity, including training of an expanded work- force—particularly given existing workforce challenges. In Committee, I talked about the workforce impacts of the Bill, drawing on figures and research from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I will not repeat those figures, save to say that NHS England set a target back in 2016 to have more than 1,040 consultant psychiatrists in post in England by last year. Based on these targets, as of last year, there was still a shortfall of 769, so we still have a long way to go. Of course, the mental health workforce goes considerably wider than consultants.
I turn to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, to which I have added my name and which we very strongly support on these Benches. This amendment would ensure that mental health funding is not cut as a share of overall health service funding until this Bill is fully implemented. Indeed, it is vital, given the pressures on public finances, including on the overall health system and the pressures that they pose to mental health spending. Critically, the amendment would not tie the Government’s hands in whatever decisions they make about the overall level of NHS spending.
One reason why I support this so strongly is because the Written Statement from the Secretary of State on 27 March on the amount and share of spend on mental health was, frankly, not reassuring, with mental health spending expected to go down as a proportion of overall NHS spend this year and a forecast for similar next year. I know that it was small amounts, but this could be part of a trend. It just reinforces the point that mental health spending and parity of esteem are not currently sufficiently protected, which I believe underlines the need for legislative cover. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support him.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, this Bill has been years in gestation, and we have heard, in Committee and on Report, that it is going to be years in implementation. The Government, not unreasonably, have pointed to two principal rate limiters for that: workforce and funding. As we have just heard in the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, her Amendment 50 is responsive to the staffing constraints and concerns, and my Amendment 59 tackles the funding question. I am grateful for her support and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
In a nutshell, as the noble Baroness says, this amendment does not seek to tell the Government, or indeed the House of Commons under its privilege, how much to spend on the NHS. All it says is that there should be a floor on the share of that total going to mental health for a time-limited period while the Act is being implemented; in other words, the Government would continue to decide the size of the NHS pie. The Government, of whichever complexion, could decide to grow or shrink it, but the slice of that pie devoted to mental health would be protected for a time-limited period, not only at the local ICB level but nationally.
We had a debate on this in some detail in Committee, so I will not repeat the arguments in favour, but I will update the House on two developments since then. First, in consultation with the Public Bill Office, this Report amendment is more tightly drawn, focusing specifically on the mental health services that are in scope of this Bill and are required for its implementation. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has just noted, since we debated this point in Committee, new evidence has emerged, sadly, as to precisely why this amendment is needed. Previously, Ministers have argued, in good faith, that the Government are committed to protecting the mental health share anyway, whereas last Thursday, the Written Ministerial Statement disclosed that the Government now intend to shrink the share of NHS funding on mental health services in the year ahead.
The Written Ministerial Statement says:
“This is because of significant investment in other areas of healthcare”.
That is not a justification; it is a mathematical tautology. It reveals a preference entirely antithetical to what will be required over the years to get this Bill implemented.
It may be argued that it is a small percentage reduction, even though it is an important negative new precedent that has been set. However, a small percentage reduction on a large pound note number itself constitutes a large pound note number. Mental health services will be missing out on hundreds of millions of pounds more, not only in the year ahead but over the decade that it will take to implement the Bill. If that is not corrected in subsequent years, over £1 billion of funding has, in effect, been removed from mental health services and the implementation of the Bill as a consequence of that decision.
In summary, there are, sadly, real grounds for concern about whether the implementation of this Act will be properly and expeditiously resourced. If the Government want to argue that this amendment is unnecessary, because they are going to do what it says anyway, it is not clear why they would therefore object to its inclusion in the Bill. But if the Government’s argument is that they do not support the amendment because they would like the flexibility to cut mental health funding shares, then, to my mind, that really points to the necessity of the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I rise briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. We saw in Committee multiple amendments all trying to address the resource issue. We have focused on this one because it is both an elegant solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, just outlined, and it is—emanating from the Cross Benches—a moderate solution that can and I think will attract wide support from around the House.
As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, parity of esteem has never been achieved and, on the current figures, is currently going backwards, in the wrong direction. We have to focus on the fact that the waiting lists for community mental health care for adults and young people and children are twice as long as those for physical healthcare. That is the outcome of the inequality of esteem with which mental health is being treated. I note that the Rethink Mental Illness Right Treatment, Right Time report found that most people living with a severe mental illness experienced worsening mental health while waiting for treatment, with 42% requiring urgent care and 26% being hospitalised. We are aiming to shift from hospital care—in-patient care—to community care, but we are actually forcing things in the other direction because people reach such a state of crisis. I have to preface the horror of what I am about to say with a warning. The Right Treatment, Right Time report found that 25% of people whose mental health deteriorated while waiting for treatment attempted suicide, which highlights how the lack of funding for mental health care impacts on that awful statistic.
This is a step to create a framework that heads in the right direction. As noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, how could you possibly oppose this?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, very briefly, I will say that I absolutely support this amendment. I think it is worth clarifying what I said earlier about overdiagnosis. The danger is that that can be interpreted as meaning that I want cuts; what I actually want is targeted intervention for the right people, rather than saying, “Oh, everybody’s been calling themselves mentally ill, so let’s cut the services”.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, that, if we do not sort out the amount of community provision, what we have done over the last few weeks, never mind the years preceding it, will have been a waste of our time, because the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on—that is the danger. It is very tempting, in a period of intense economic difficulties, to suggest that this might be one of the first things to go—so I do think this is a very good amendment.
I will remind the House of a discussion we had late the other evening on the plight of prisoners. If there is no community resource for people leaving prison—ex-prisoners—they will deteriorate and end up becoming very ill in the community and being incarcerated again. I discussed that in great detail. In other words, this is essential if we are serious about saying that we do not want to lock people up but, instead, want to treat them appropriately.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise very quickly to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and have put my name to it.
I will add a couple of extra things to the noble Lord’s very well-argued case. Modest as it may be, I think it is an effective measure—and this is why I think it is and why the House should support the noble Lord’s amendment if he decides to push it to a vote. It is not that the Secretary of State has announced that the percentage will decrease next year; the percentage decrease happened during this financial year, going down from 9% to 8.78%. So we are now on a trend for the percentage of National Health Service spend on mental health.
Furthermore, one has to question the priority of the Government when they look at the national planning guidance and some of the targets that have been dropped from it. There are no plans to target the 2 million long waiters waiting for mental health care. It would be slightly disingenuous of the Minister, in response, to talk just about the mental health investment scheme, because all it refers to is ICB spend. The uniqueness and cleverness of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is that it talks about all health service spend, including non-ICB spend, specialised commissioning and other elements that need to be there.
Mental health takes up 20% of illness treated by the NHS, which will probably be spending 8.7%. Because of the trend that is happening, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is absolutely vital to ensure not just that the percentage is maintained but that the community facilities within this will be funded and implemented.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will not speak at length, but I express my support for the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in her Amendment 50. Her concerns around the resourcing of the mental health workforce are well founded and there is no better source of evidence for those concerns than the CQC, which I thank for briefing me, very fully, on this subject at the beginning of last month.
When we look at the issue of workforce sufficiency, a paradox confronts us. Between 2019 and 2024, the mental health workforce grew by nearly 40,000 full-time equivalent staff—an increase of 35%. Yet, when we sit down to read the CQC’s recently published Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2023/24, we find that staff shortages are a pervasive feature throughout the service. There is a cocktail of reasons for this apparent contradiction: very steeply rising patient demand; patients being admitted to hospital with a greater acuity of mental illness; a struggle in many places to recruit staff with the right skills; and poor retention of skilled staff, with, as a consequence, a high reliance on agency workers. That all impacts the quality of care given to patients, because, with hospital staff suffering burnout and temporary staff coming and going, there is often no opportunity to develop the kinds of therapeutic relationships that make patients feel psychologically safe and secure.
Of course, not all areas of the country are the same. Geographical disparities affect the availability of different skill sets, resulting in different kinds of problems manifesting themselves: for example, in one of the three high secure hospitals, the CQC encountered cases where patients were being kept in their rooms during the day. Elsewhere, on a number of in-patient wards, patients with autism or a learning disability reported that staff lacked the necessary training to look after them properly. In other settings, the lack of training is more basic: agency staff very often do not know how to operate the hospital’s IT system. This mixed picture underlines the fact that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is expressed in exactly the right way, since it mandates that biennial staff sufficiency reviews should be done not centrally but by commissioners locally.
That formula is appropriate for another reason. Depending on where you are in the country, there can be different sorts of barriers to accessing care, whether the barriers are for people from ethnic minority groups, for children and young people or simply for people living in areas of high deprivation. The more people find it difficult to access the care that they need, the more seriously they can be at risk. That particularly applies to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made that point. We have not heard much from the Government about workforce planning generally, but this is an area where this exercise just cannot wait.
This leads me to Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. It will not be much comfort to him if I say that I am right behind the sentiment of the amendment. He knows that, sadly, I cannot ask my colleagues on these Benches to vote for it, simply because I do not think it is appropriate for primary legislation to tie the hands of Government in matters of health spending. Those macro decisions surely have to be for Ministers.
Nevertheless, the flagship principle at the centre of the amendment is parity of esteem—a principle that is enshrined in statute and to which I am totally signed up, alongside, I am sure, all of your Lordships. However, parity of esteem is a broad concept and should, in my view, be measured in a range of ways, not simply by reference to monetary input, important as that is—and it is important.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions and considerations this evening, to which I have listened closely.
I first turn to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Workforce is absolutely a critical factor in enabling these reforms and we have committed to recruiting 8,500 more mental health staff over the course of this Parliament. The impact assessment sets out our expectations for the additional workforce that is required to deliver the Bill.
However, there are already various mechanisms in place to monitor and address concerns about the mental health workforce. The amendment would be duplicative and unnecessary. Providers registered with the CQC—both NHS and independent services—are required to deploy enough suitably qualified, competent and experienced staff, as outlined in Regulation 18 of the Staffing of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. If CQC finds a breach in Regulation 18, it can take action.
The Mental Health Act Code of Practice also states that local authorities should ensure that there are sufficient approved mental health professionals and independent mental health advocates. All staff in CQC-registered providers must receive the appropriate training that is necessary to enable them to carry out their duties under Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act Regulations 2014.
At a national level, CQC reports on workforce sufficiency as part of its monitoring of the Mental Health Act report. We would argue that this is a much better process than requiring integrated care boards to mark themselves on how well they are fulfilling their duties.
Furthermore, as I said on Monday and wish to reiterate, we are committed to laying an annual report on implementation, which will set out progress made and future plans for implementation. This will include information on the expansion of the workforce, including second opinion appointed doctors, Section 12 doctors and approved clinicians. It will also include details of the key statistics and outcomes under the Mental Health Act, including detention rates, community treatment order rates and other key metrics, such as racial disparities and outcomes for children and young people, all of which noble Lords rightly seek. I hope this annual commitment will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House and that this, combined with the existing workforce monitoring I have referred to, will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
On Amendment 59, I also understand —as does the noble Earl, Lord Howe—the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, which is to ensure that we invest in delivering these reforms. I want to be clear: as I said in Committee, there are already mechanisms in the NHS Act to prioritise mental health spend to deliver these reforms.
To reiterate the point that I made previously, we believe that this amendment is not the right mechanism to ensure that we do that. I will return to the three main reasons for that, but I want first to refer to the point the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made when he spoke of “shrinking mental health spend”.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
It was the shrinking share of mental health spend.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that correction from a sedentary position. Perhaps I could provide some more clarity, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked for.
The proportion of spend is almost exactly the same as it was last year, with a difference of just 0.07%. We understand concerns that the share of overall NHS funding for mental health will reduce slightly. However, this does not mean that mental health funding is being cut, and I would not want noble Lords to think that to be the case. To be clear, spending on mental health support will increase relative to 2024-25 and is forecast to amount to £15.6 billion—an increase of £680 million in cash terms, and equivalent to £320 million in real terms.
Perhaps it would be helpful for me to return to the three main reasons for not supporting this amendment. The first is—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, helpfully referred to—what I would call a point of principle. Primary legislation should not be used to constrain spending in this way. Multiyear budgets for government departments will be set by the established spending review process, which considers spending in the round and in the context of the Government’s policy priorities. Additionally, it is Parliament that is responsible for scrutinising government spending and approving spending set by departments for the current financial year as part of the estimates process.
Secondly, the amendment as drafted applies only to spend under the Mental Health Act. The mental health system, as noble Lords will appreciate, does not structure its accounts based on the legal framework under which a patient is held. A single ward, for example, could contain a mix of patients under the Mental Health Act and informal patients who would not usually be considered to be under the Mental Health Act. Likewise, community services will support a mix of people, some on community treatment orders and others who are not. It would be impractical to require services to split costs based on the ever-changing patient mix within their care.
The third reason for not accepting this amendment, and perhaps the most fundamental point, is that the share of spend on the Mental Health Act could reduce over time, which is not undesirable. I will explain why. The genesis of these reforms is the review initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady May, to address the rising rates of detention. We all want to see more people cared for effectively in the community so that the need for the use of the Act is reduced. This would require more investment in preventive community services, which, I put to noble Lords, is surely the preferable model for supporting severe mental illness. In creating a legal requirement for the share of spend specifically under the Mental Health Act not to decrease, this amendment would actually preclude the shift from detention to prevention that I know we all want to see.
So, while I absolutely understand the intention, and I can commit that we will invest to deliver these reforms, we cannot support this amendment, which, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe is fundamentally flawed. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord will not press his.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this has been another incredibly important group of amendments. We are very short of time. I thank everyone who has contributed. I welcome that the Minister has committed to an annual report on implementation. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a debate in both Houses when that annual report is received. I was very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his support on my Amendment 50, which I will not be pushing to a vote. I do not consider it to be duplicative and unnecessary. If I did, I would not have tabled it. I thought that it was quite good, but I am not pushing it to a vote.
My final comment is that I was very pleased that there was widespread support for the very important amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. It was variously described as modest, elegant, clever and other things. It had an awful lot going for it, but I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, to say how he wishes to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Meston
“Determination of ability to decide for persons under 16(1) For the purposes of this Act and the Mental Health Act 1983, a person aged under 16 (referred to in this section as a child) is able to make the relevant decision if they can—(a) understand the information relevant to the decision;(b) retain the information; (c) use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision;(d) communicate their decisions (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).(2) Where a child is able to decide in accordance with subsection (1) above, that child will be competent for the purpose of this Act.(3) A child is not to be regarded as unable to understand the information relevant to a decision if he is able to understand an explanation of it given to him in a way that is appropriate to his circumstances (using simple language, visual aids or any other means).(4) A person determining a child’s ability to decide under this section must—(a) have due regard to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 (“the Convention”), and(b) must be able to show reasonable grounds for their belief that the child is or is not able to make the relevant decision.(5) When considered by any appropriate court or tribunal, any question whether a child is able to make the relevant decision within the meaning of this Act must be decided on the balance of probabilities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a test for determining a child’s ability to make decisions (competence) under the Mental Health Act.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I explained this amendment on the assessment of competence of under-16 year-olds on Monday, and was grateful for the forceful support that it received. However, I recognise the realities of the Government’s determined objections to it. I record my thanks to the Minister for her explanation in a letter to me and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, this afternoon, indicating the Minister’s wish to make progress on the matters which we raised. I therefore simply ask the Government to consider circulating a preliminary draft of the guidance to be produced, preferably before the Bill leaves Parliament. I also ask them to consider whether a designated task force could be used to formulate that guidance. I will not be moving my amendment.
Baroness Keeley
“Human Rights Act 1998: provision of treatment for a mental disorder as a public function(1) This section applies where—(a) a patient is receiving aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983,(b) a patient is accommodated in a hospital for the purpose of being given medical treatment for mental disorder, or(c) a person's health or social care arrangements in connection with their mental disorder give rise to a deprivation of their liberty, within the meaning of that term as under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (2) The provider of treatment or care under subsection (1) is to be taken for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) to be exercising a function of a public nature, if the treatment or care is arranged by or paid for (directly or indirectly, and in whole or in part) by a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland, or by a NHS Health Board, an NHS Integrated Care Board, or by a Health and Social Care Trust.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Human Rights Act 1998 applies when people receive outsourced mental health treatment or after-care, or are deprived of their liberty in connection with a mental disorder. It addresses a gap in human rights protection exposed by Sammut & Ors v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 2265 (KB).
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 54 in my name is the same as the one I tabled in Committee. It aims to ensure that the Human Rights Act 1998 protects individuals whenever the NHS, local authorities or other state bodies outsource mental health treatment or aftercare to private providers. It also seeks to secure human rights protection whenever people are deprived of their liberty by private health or social care providers in connection with mental disorders.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her comments on this amendment when it was debated in Committee and for all her engagement on the related issues before and since. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her support for this amendment, and to her and other noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendment in Committee. I am also very grateful to Dr Lucy Series and Professor Luke Clements. They helped with drafting this amendment and provided notes and briefings on the need to close this gap in human rights protection for mental health patients when their care is commissioned from private health and social care providers.
As we noted in Committee, after the 2007 case of YL v Birmingham City Council, Parliament moved to close gaps in human rights protection with Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and, more recently, with Section 73 of the Care Act. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, reminded us in Committee that, as Health Minister, he tabled a government amendment to the Care Bill in 2014 to close the gap in human rights protection.
However, the recent High Court case of Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd showed that mental health patients and many other users of outsourced health and social care services were still not protected. The judge held that the Human Rights Act did not apply because Mr Sammut’s care was arranged under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, not under the Care Act. This judgment highlighted the narrow limitations of the Human Rights Act as a remedy for using outsourced public services such as private care provision or mental health treatment. This raises concerns about the human rights protection of thousands of other people who are deprived of their liberty in private health and social care settings in connection with their mental disorders.
Amendment 54 addresses these gaps in human rights protection for three groups of people: patients such as Mr Sammut, who are receiving mental health aftercare from private providers; any patient receiving in-patient mental health services, whether subject to the Mental Health Act or not; and anybody who is deprived of their liberty by a private provider of health or social care in connection with a mental disorder. It would ensure better protection for people with mental disorders in private care settings.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to speak at great length, but I do not want anybody to misinterpret that as in any way diminishing the support for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. I believe that this is very important.
It is important for two main reasons. The first is that we all know that the Human Rights Act is under attack on many different fronts for many different reasons. I happen to be—it is perhaps fair to say or apt to describe as—a human rights absolutist: I do not believe that human rights can be picked or that you can pick and choose whose human rights you support. Human rights are universal. You cannot call yourself a human rights supporter unless you are prepared to stand up for the human rights of people you do not like and you do not care for. I suggest that among the people whose human rights are most at risk are those who are stuck away in care homes without anybody paying any attention to them—perhaps without relatives —and about whom, frankly, nobody cares. They are the people who are at the mercy of, particularly, providers who have a commercial interest in maintaining them in the positions where they are rather than seeking to address their care in more fundamental ways. If nothing else, I want us to acknowledge that.
Secondly, I want to pay tribute to all those health professionals and to people such as solicitors who choose to work in this most unglamorous part of the legal system. There is no great financial reward in putting yourself out to stand up for these people, but they do. It is their dedication that has brought this back to the attention of people in this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and I were to a certain extent, as we all have been throughout the passage of the Bill, assuaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the very personable way in which she has listened to all of our concerns, but we were not yet convinced that the Government, who are uniquely placed to stick up for the rights of these people, are doing so to the extent that they should. That is why we have taken the time and troubled your Lordships this evening. I hope that all of the provisions of this amendment are taken up by the Government.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of that persecuted minority of activist human rights lawyers. Crucially, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lady Keeley, who have done so much wonderful work on this. I also commend the brains trust of mental health professionals and lawyers who sat behind them.
On 24 February, we had a lengthy discussion on this in Committee, and it was one of the best debates in which I have had the privilege of participating in your Lordships’ House, and not just because everybody agreed. But they did. I do not remember a single person speaking against my noble friend’s amendment in Committee. We disagree well in your Lordships’ House, but it says something that not a single person disagreed. In particular, I commend the eloquent speeches on that day by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Opposition Front Bench.
I have been very excited to hear that my noble friend the Minister has been in such constructive meetings with my noble friend Lady Keeley. Whatever debates there are about contracting out vital public services, nobody on any side of this House wants people to be treated less decently and with fewer human rights because of a service being provided directly by the state or a decent contractor. With that, I look forward expectantly, with hope in my heart, to the response of my noble friend, who is very experienced, decent and wily.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and her clear and concise explanation of this amendment both today and in Committee, I can do no other than express my full support, yet again, for all she has said. This is indeed an important issue that case law has exposed as needing resolution, and the amendment seems to achieve that aim extremely well. I may have read the runes incorrectly, but I dare to entertain the hope that, if the amendment is not to be accepted as it stands, which of course would be very gratifying, the Government will take the matter forward in the way the noble Baroness has asked.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to respond to my noble friend Lady Keeley’s amendment. I had not joined the team during Committee, so I was not present at the meeting that everyone has described, but I have read the verbatim report and I express my thanks for the sincerity and the careful, thoughtful way that the arguments have been put forward by all noble Members who took part and those who have spoken today.
I am, of course, aware of the wider strong support for this issue. I am very grateful for the references to the different organisations that have engaged in this. I am also struck by the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about reference to other professionals—all those unsung heroes who do not get the recognition they deserve. I think that we all join together to express our gratitude.
I express my condolences to the family of Paul Sammut. As we have discussed, his case has helped bring this to our attention. We recognise the concern around unequal coverage and rights to redress under the Human Rights Act, and the court judgment has highlighted the need to clarify the position of private mental health and care providers under the Human Rights Act when providing mental health-related care arranged and paid for by the NHS and local authorities.
Tonight, I commit that we will return to this issue when the Bill goes to the other place. There, we can have proper discussion and further consideration of some of the issues raised. My noble friend Lady Keeley has raised the issue of the wider implications of this, and I am particularly conscious of the references to children’s services. It is an issue that we have, of course, been discussing with the DfE, which has responsibilities to look at the ramifications for it.
We need to keep working on this, recognising the gap that my noble friend and others have raised in this place, but committing to taking it forward as part of the legislative process. I know that my noble friend the Minister has put a lot of time into this and is thankful for the input. She has graciously offered further meetings on this point as we move forward in the discussions and we look forward to the outcomes in due course.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that Ministers will pick up this issue and hopefully take action to close this gap in human rights protection during the Bill’s passage in the other place. I thank noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, for their support for this amendment in Committee and today. It has been important that we have that support, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said. I want to thank the Minister. She has done a huge amount of work with us on this amendment and I thank her and my noble friend Lady Blake for agreeing to take action on this important issue of human rights protection. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollins
“Long-term segregation: independent medical review After section 142C of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—“142D Independent medical review of long-term segregation of patients with learning disabilities or autism(1) Where a patient with a learning disability, autism, or awaiting autism assessment is placed in long-term segregation under section 142D (Notification requirements for long-term segregation for patients with learning disabilities or autism), the Secretary of State or a designated body must arrange for an independent review within 28 days.(2) The responsibilities, procedures, and reporting requirements for such reviews must be specified in the Code of Practice under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce an independent review process for patients with learning disabilities or autism placed in long-term segregation under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, although funding for independent reviews for people detained in long-term segregation will continue until 2026, it is not really enough. Independent reviews have been found to be effective and need to continue until the practice of long-term segregation ends. I am sorry that it is so late, but I should like to test the opinion of the House.
“Consultation: bus funding formula(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response to Amendment 59. I accept that there are some philosophical differences of view that she expressed. However, I do not think it was right to say that the scope of Amendment 59 does not include any community and preventive mental health care, since the Bill itself includes provisions that relate to those types of services. In any event, now is not the time for further relitigating. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 59.
“Duty to implement preventative policies for mental disorders(1) The bodies listed in subsection (3) must implement policies which take a preventative approach to the management of mental disorders which are likely to lead to detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983.(2) The policies must be adapted to the needs of the local community that those bodies serve.(3) The bodies in subsection (1) are integrated care boards, local health boards and local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that ICBs, LHBs and local authorities take a preventative approach to the management of mental disorders which lead to detainment and adapt their approaches to the needs of their local area.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am acutely aware of the hour so I will be very brief. My Amendment 63A would provide for a duty for ICBs, local health boards and local authorities to implement preventive policies for mental disorders.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in regretting how the debate on this crucial Lords-starter Bill has been squeezed. However, I am in a lovely position because, in responding to the group beginning with Amendment 48, the Minister essentially supported my amendment. She said that if support can be provided much earlier, mental ill-health can be prevented. That is essentially what this amendment seeks to do.
I am obviously not going to divide the House at this stage of the evening, but I have spoken over the years to so many public health professionals, consultants and directors in local authorities, and they continually express the frustration that everyone knows that investment in preventive healthcare is the way to take pressure off the NHS. Understandably, when someone turns up with an acute mental health crisis or a broken leg, we have to treat that, and that is where the resources go.
This amendment is an attempt to write into the Bill—I hope it might be revisited in the other place—the duty of prevention. And it has to be a duty. This aligns very much with the Government’s rhetoric and their approach to public health. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope this can be the start of a discussion.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, because of the lateness of the hour I will be very brief. These Benches support the aim of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is important that, throughout all this, there is an element not just of treating the acute phase of mental ill-health but trying to ensure that prevention is there within the health service and across the whole of government, national and local. We believe on these Benches that a mental health commissioner would have been really helpful for that, as they could highlight elements that could help with prevention—but the House has made its decision on that.
I have only one question for the Minister. One of the three shifts of the Government is towards prevention. How do the Government see prevention of mental ill-health fitting into that shift, not just in NHS services but, as I said, across the whole of government, including local government, to determine how they can use their resources and levers to bring about what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is trying to achieve?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this will probably be the last time I speak on Report—and I am sure many people are grateful for that. Before I make my last remarks, I want to put on record my gratitude to the Minister, her officials and the Whips for the amount of time they have given us in discussing a lot of these amendments. It is certainly appreciated by our side and, I am sure, by other noble Lords.
Given the time, I will not take another hour. The sentiment behind this amendment is unquestionable. During my time as Minister, I was repeatedly reminded of the need to focus on prevention, and of course I agreed to that. As we know, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his report on the state of the NHS, repeated his emphasis on the shift to prevention. If we believe in parity of esteem, where possible, this should be applied to mental health.
If we can shift from a situation where we are treating patients and repeatedly detaining them, such that they are detained for longer, to a scenario where we can treat and prevent those conditions worsening, our mental health system will be better for it. I am sure that all noble Lords can agree with this. So we strongly agree with the intent here, which is in line with one of the Government’s other intentions: a shift from hospital to community.
However, when I have discussed this amendment with others, I have heard one concern that I am still reflecting on. This amendment states that ICBs, local health boards and local authorities must implement preventive policies. It has been suggested to me that this might be too prescriptive or may place a duty on smaller bodies that may not necessarily have the resources to implement such policies. Those who suggest this tell me that it may appear more reasonable to place that duty on the Secretary of State or the Department of Health and Social Care, which have the capabilities and resources to implement preventive measures. Such a policy could work if the department had to work with ICBs and local authorities, as well as local community non-state civil society organisations, to move towards preventive care. As I said, I am still reflecting on this, but I do not wish to detain the House while I make up my mind. So, with that, I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on Amendment 63A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am grateful for the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall —and the appreciation shown throughout Report—for the whole team. Similarly, I reciprocate thanks to all noble Lords and their offices for their assistance in improving the Mental Health Bill.
As the noble Baroness observed, we agree with the intention of the amendment: there must be a focus on prevention and the commissioning of services must reflect the needs of the local community. However, we do not feel that it is necessary to place this requirement in statute. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government are currently co-developing the 10-year health plan with the public, staff and patients. As part of this, we are exploring ways to stimulate the shift from sickness to prevention so that we can deliver an NHS fit for the future.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. First, progress is already being made to transform community mental health services. In the last 12 months, more than 400,000 adults have received help through new models of care that aim to give people with severe mental illness greater choice and control over their care. We are going further by piloting the 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centre model in England, building on learning from international exemplars such as those in Trieste, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has taken a great interest in. Six early implementers are bringing together their community, crisis and in-patient functions into one open-access neighbourhood team that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This means that people with mental health needs can walk in or self-refer, as can their loved ones.
ICBs are already required to have policies that reflect their communities under the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. Section 3(1)(i) of the NHS Act 2006 also specifies the duty of an ICB to commission certain health services, including
“such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness”.
An integrated care board must arrange for the provision of services
“to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility”.
ICBs and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts, including their mental health trusts, are also required to prepare a joint forward plan, which describes how the ICB will arrange for NHS services to meet their population’s physical and mental health needs.
Given that these duties already exist, given the Government’s commitment to a shift from sickness to prevention, and given the progress being made on community transformation and expansion of crisis services, we do not consider that it is necessary to create any additional duties within the Mental Health Act and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and the positive mention of Trieste. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in thanking the Minister for her genuine engagement in the debates on this Bill. On this final point, it is worth noting that a very small number of noble Lords put in an enormous amount of work into the Bill. It would be nice to see a wider engagement across the House rather than the weight being carried by such a small number of people.
On the amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his expressions of support for the general intention at least. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on whether the duty should potentially rest with the Secretary of State rather than locally, we come back to some of the debate that we had in the earlier group when we were talking about a responsible officer. It is about laying duties down at the level where services are delivered, which is why I took this approach.
None the less, given the hour, I shall stop there. The Bill is now going to the other place, and I hope that we see a real level of attention and focus there as well, as there has been in your Lordships’ House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“(3A) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations under this section that amend or repeal provision made by primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3B) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clauses 52 and 53 would ensure that regulations made under the consequential amendment powers in the Bill that amend or repeal primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for amendment 64.
Baroness Merron
“(4A) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations under this section that amend or repeal provision made by primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.(4B) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for amendment 64.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for amendment 64.
Foreign Influence Registration Scheme
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, maintaining our national security is one of the first duties of government. When we were in office, we took robust steps to strengthen our national security in the face of an increasingly unstable world. That international trend has continued since this Government took office, and it is essential that the Government build on our work to protect our country from foreign threats.
I was very pleased to hear the honourable Member for Barnsley North in the other place praise our Conservative record in passing the National Security Act 2023, a landmark piece of legislation, which, to quote the Security Minister, has been “transformative”. I welcome that constructive tone from Ministers on this policy area, and I can only hope that the Government will take the same approach in other policy areas.
In the Statement, Ministers had plenty to say about Iran and Russia. In the same constructive tone that they have taken, we welcome these steps. Both Iran and Russia pose a threat to our national security, and we must be robust in response to those threats. But Ministers are silent on China. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to explain why the Government have not added China to the enhanced tier of FIRS? We have already set out the shocking evidence of Chinese engagement in foreign espionage in the UK, and this House recently voted to prevent Great British Energy’s supply chain including products linked with oppressive practices. We did this with China’s oppression of the Uyghur people in mind, and I pay particular tribute to the tireless campaigning of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on that issue.
China engages in industrial-scale espionage, stealing technology from Governments, universities and industry. I have already spoken about the repression of the Uyghur people, but it also seeks to repress Chinese citizens here in Britain, and the Chinese state’s approach to Hong Kong and the Hong Kongese is deeply concerning. China has set up undeclared and illegal police stations in the UK and, last year, placed a bounty on the heads of three Hong Kong dissidents living in the UK. Why has the Chinese ambassador not been summoned to explain that? We on these Benches believe that China should be in the enhanced tier of FIRS. The Government refuse to comment on this but, regardless of whether the Minister is willing to comment, I hope that he will listen.
Ministers have said:
“We will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security”.
This approach is not strong enough, and we will and must continue to press the Government to place China on the enhanced tier of FIRS.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself and these Benches with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, especially the last part. I will add to that small list of questions to the Minister with regard to China in a moment, but I also recognise the high level of consensus that there is; that the UK requires a FIRS; and that the legislation is sound. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will recall that this House was instrumental in bringing about the scheme that we now have, rather than what had been initially proposed and passed in the House of Commons. That demonstrates the value of all political parties working together for proper scrutiny.
The intention was to have a robust and deliverable scheme that would be targeted, proportionate and effective. I am therefore grateful that there is now a clear date of operation and that it will go live on 1 July. I commend all the work of the officials who are bringing this together. It will be a year since the general election and 18 months after the passage of the legislation, but the key thing is to have it operable, effective and able to be communicated. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more than was in the Statement about how the new scheme will be communicated. It is imperative that it registers those who we require it to register and does not include those who we do not require to be registered, which would clog up the much-valued time of officials. We welcome the regulations that the Government have indicated have been laid and we will carry out proper scrutiny of them.
I am grateful for the announcement about Russia. I will repeat something that I asked for when we considered the national security legislation. These Benches asked the previous Government to proactively update Parliament on a regular basis about not just the level of activities of those seeking to interfere inappropriately in our political and economic systems but the type of activities, which often change, with different methods and ways of seeking to interfere. I hope that the Government might consider this to be beneficial. It has been useful when we have had periodic updates from the head of MI5 about the level of potential interference, but that is after the event. Given that this interference is intended to be towards people such us in Parliament, then as much as we can be informed on a proactive basis, the better.
I repeat the request that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked the Leader of the House previously. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report is still redacted. Given that the Government have decided to put Russia in the enhanced tier, there is no justification for the unredacted report not to be released so that we can be fully aware. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who had been a significant member of that committee and now chairs it, will have his own views on this. We need to be informed about what the current potential kinds of activities are with regard to Russia. The Leader replied to my noble friend that it was an interesting question to be considered. I hope that the Government have considered it and that the Minister will be able to give a considered answer. If he cannot today, I hope that he will be able to write to me.
Secondly, how will this scheme operate not only within Russian state entities but also their proxies? The legislation is worded in a fine way in order to capture those that will be acting on behalf of Russia, but I hope the Minister will be able to stress that we will be able to capture all those who are acting on behalf of Russia.
Moving on, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, did, to China, these Benches believe that it should be on the enhanced tier. We also believe that the China audit that the Government have carried out should be published in full, not just as a narrative summary. We believe that there should be a human rights and democracy report that is linked with national security legislation, especially as we know that the Chinese state has been acting in an extraterritorial repressive way with regard to residents in this country—especially those from Hong Kong. There are some extremely brave people from Hong Kong whose family members at home are under threat because of unacceptable activities that are carried out here in the UK. We of course know that the proposed embassy will have an enormous hub for intelligence gathering and I therefore hope that the Government will not make a decision on planning before they publish their full China audit and a human rights and democracy report.
As to why it is beneficial, I will again quote the work of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish—maybe he will agree with me on this point. The excellent ISC report on China from July 2023 still gives us very clear signals as to why we should have China recognised within our interference legislation. Paragraph K in the summary of conclusions states:
“In terms of interference, China oversteps the boundary and crosses the line from exerting influence—a legitimate course of action—into interference, in the pursuit of its interests and values at the expense of those of the UK”.
Furthermore, paragraph H states:
“To compound the problem, it is not just the Chinese Intelligence Services: the Chinese Communist Party co-opts every state institution, company and citizen. This ‘whole-of-state’ approach means China can aggressively target the UK, yet the scale of the activity makes it more difficult to detect”.
Both those recommendations are perfectly clear evidence of the justification for China to be put on the enhanced tier. If the Government make the decision not to do so, they have to very clearly state why the committee was wrong and that the levels of interference are not being carried out, because there is no evidence that that level of interference, which was found to be unacceptable, has changed—in fact, it has got worse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their initial comments and contributions, and for the broad welcome that they have given to the Government’s decision to include Russia in FIRS and yesterday’s announcement by my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Barnsley North, Dan Jarvis. A number of points have been mentioned and I will try to raise them in my response.
It is important to say that those who have been put under the scheme—both Iran and Russia—should recognise that there is cross-party support in this House, and that national security and the Government’s response to those challenges have the support of the main political parties in this House. As the Security Minister set out yesterday, the FIRS announcement does three things. It helps with transparency, so it will give those two nations currently on the list transparency of foreign state influence in the United Kingdom. Secondly, it provides disruption by giving the police and MI5 a critical new disruptive tool. Thirdly, it gives deterrence for those two nations as a whole.
It is worth putting before the House why Russia has been added to the list. It is not only because of the Salisbury nerve agent attack, espionage, arson, cyberattacks, the spear-phishing of parliamentarians and attacks on emails; the illegal war in Ukraine means that Russia remains a serious state threat and we need to have the provisions of the Act, which had cross-party support, and FIRS put in place today.
It is also important that I take on board again what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said about the fact that this is coming in now. We came into government on 4 July last year. We wanted to give a three-month notice period for the implementation of a FIRS notice. We have worked with officials—to whom I pay tribute for their hard, consistent work to bring the scheme to fruition—and, from 1 July, both Iran and Russia will fall under the purview of the scheme. That is a good development, and it reflects the Government driving forward that point of view.
The three-month grace period is important. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, mentioned guidance and support. We will shortly publish guidance to explain clearly the requirements of each tier and how to comply with them. We will produce sector guidance for academia, media, business, defence and civil society sectors. The implementation programme is extremely important and is now, I believe, on track.
Two main issues have been raised in addition to that of support, and I will try to address both. First, I will deal with the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised about the Russia report and whether the ISC will publish an unredacted version. I find myself in the strange position of being a Minister talking about a report that I authored as a member of the ISC between 2016 and 2019. Although I have seen the unredacted version because I participated in its production, I have to say, as a Minister of the Crown who has looked at the unredacted version, that it provides highly classified material that would damage the operational capabilities of the intelligence agencies, if published, by revealing targets, methods, sources and operational capabilities. So the Government have no plans to produce an unredacted version. However, that does not take away from the fact that the broad themes of the Russia report, which were highlighted by the committee I sat on over five years ago, are the reasons why the Government took the actions on the FIRS set out yesterday in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister responsible. That may not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, but I hope that it clarifies where the Government stand today.
China was mentioned by both the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Purvis of Tweed; they raised legitimate questions about the Government’s view of the country. As I have set out in a previous response on China, and as my honourable friend said yesterday, we will always keep the FIRS under review. However, this Government have been clear that we are taking a long-term, consistent approach to managing UK relations with China. As has been said, we will co-operate when we can on issues of international co-operation and trade; we will compete when we need to on a whole range of issues; and we will challenge where we must, including on issues of national security. There have been times when, because of concerns, we have challenged on issues of national security. However, currently, the Government’s decision, although it is always kept under review, is that Iran and Russia are the two countries to fall under the initial FIRS, which will be operational from 1 July.
A range of issues about human rights and security are raised consistently in Parliamentary Questions and in comments and statements by Members of this House and the other place, including concerns about China. We will continue to keep that under review, but, as of today, Russia and Iran are the two nations that are under the FIRS—I hope that noble Lords can accept that explanation. We will continue to examine, at all times, any threats from any countries. I hope that the decision a few weeks ago to put Iran under the FIRS and the decision this week to put Russia under it are welcome, because those decisions will help protect our country from strategic threats from state actors.
Finally, I remind the House that depending on which tier individuals or nations have been put under, there is a minimum two-year prison sentence for non-registration and there is a maximum five-year prison sentence for those things. That is a severe sentence for individuals who do not comply with the legislation that had cross-party support to pass.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. As the Minister has already outlined, the FIRS was one of the key recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 report on Russia, which both he and I were involved in.
I concur with his statement on why the full, unredacted report cannot be published. I assure the House that this is a long process. We try to put as much as possible into the public domain, but there are certain elements in this work that would help our adversaries if it was produced in public.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is a keen reader of our reports, and I recommend the Iran report, which will be coming out in the next few weeks.
I ask my noble friend the Minister about Russia’s proxies and satellites—Belarus, Chechnya and others. Are the Government thinking of including them in the FIRS as well?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The FIRS we announced yesterday includes the leadership of Russia, political parties that support the leadership of Russia and a number of other state apparatuses, including the security services in Russia. We have and we will, in due course, present to this House and the House of Commons a statutory instrument that sets out in detail the applicability of the FIRS. I hope that my noble friend can wait for that to see the detail of the specific organisations and individuals named under it.
In informing him of that, I also pay tribute to him and his work with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is done behind the scenes and appears only when reports such as the Russia report are published. I know, from spending four and a half years on that committee, that there is a tremendous amount of work going on under the surface all the time to both challenge the security services, Government Ministers and agencies on their performance on security and to make the sorts of recommendations that appeared in the Russia report to date.
I am pleased that my noble friend supports the Government’s position not to seek the publication of the unredacted report. For the reasons he has mentioned, this is about national security, and it is also about themes: The themes of the Russia report were that the Russian state was seeking to undermine UK democracy and be a malevolent actor and, as we have seen in Salisbury and in Ukraine since the Russia report, it is not a player on the international stage that abides by the rules. In producing that report, we have to withhold some aspects. It is welcome that my noble friend supports the Government’s approach to that issue.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I broadly welcome it, and I think there is a broad, cross-party consensus on the national security requirements.
When I hear my noble friend talk about threats from Iran and Russia, as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy I can tell him that we looked in great detail at the nature of some of these threats—for example, in regard to ransomware—and produced a report on it.
The question I wanted to ask my noble friend relates to the political tier. I quote from the Statement:
“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”.
I wanted to raise the issue of all-party parliamentary groups, because one of the concerns that has been expressed over the years is that they could be a vehicle for unwanted influences—certainly financially—buying their way in and influencing the way all-party groups operate.
I am the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which is the Parliament’s oldest all-parliamentary party group. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that this scheme will enable it to be absolutely clear that no all-party parliamentary group that operates in this House—or in Parliament generally—is in any way open to the type of foreign influence that this Statement is designed to prevent and that as a result Parliament can have confidence that all-party parliamentary groups will be protected under this scheme to some extent by the work being undertaken, and that when FIRS goes live, we will have this confidence open to view.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his work in this field and for his question. Where the scheme will be of best benefit is that it will allow greater transparency around individuals who may be influenced, in this case by Russia or, as in the previous announcement, by Iran. That gives confidence to parliamentarians particularly. Any individual who is engaged with or supporting an all-party group, in whatever shape and form they do that, will have had to make a declaration about foreign influence before they participate in any activity as a whole. After 1 July, that will be a public matter of record. If they do not declare it and are subsequently found to have such influence, they will be subject to severe penalty, tested by the police, the CPS and the court, and ultimately subject to penalties of potential long terms of imprisonment of up to five years. I hope that will bring a transparency and confidence to all-party groups in the event of individuals believing that such groups are somehow influenced or fronted by organisations which are seeking to do malevolent damage to the UK. It gives transparency and flushes that out. If anybody tries to do that in a secretive way and is found to be doing so, they will face a severe penalty.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, exactly as the Statement says, it is our duty to defend the safety and interests of the UK. However, it also says that businesses will have to ensure they understand their obligations and that there must be strong compliance with the scheme. What consultations have taken place with businesses, both large and small to medium-sized, to ensure the process is entirely rigorous but, equally importantly, easy to undertake?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very important point. We do not want to damage business, trade or engagement with any nation currently under the FIR scheme or potentially under FIR schemes. Currently, there is a significant difficulty with trade with Russia, because of the issue with Ukraine, and rightly so. Ultimately, we have had widespread consultation on this matter. We want to make sure that we do not damage business, but it is important that national security is at the forefront of our thinking. The prime move today is to make sure that malevolent actors do not operate in a non-transparent way, and that if they do, and are found, they will face the full force of United Kingdom law under the cross-party Act that we supported collectively in both Houses.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this Statement is about the foreign influence registration scheme, which, as the Minister said, is trying to ensure transparency and control of the lobbying influence of certain states in the UK. But this is part of a much larger issue.
The lobbying Act 2014, passed under the coalition Government, is now a decade old. By coincidence, I started today—some time ago—at a round table which was considering a forthcoming report from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, titled No Rules Britannia? The UK’s Lobbying Laws Exposed on the Global Stage. That report is still under embargo but I do not think institute will mind me sharing a phrase from the foreword, which says that
“the UK’s lobbying laws leave us languishing at the lower end of global governance rankings making it harder to promote our democratic values on the world stage”.
Is the Minister prepared to look at the report when it is released, if I share it with him and his team? He may want to respond later in writing, but are the Government prepared to look seriously at the lobbying Act of 10 years ago to see what needs to be done to bring us up to somewhere near global standards?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course I will look at any report that is produced and share it internally within government. We want to see transparency in lobbying. That is why we are taking measures to ensure that Members of both Houses are transparent in how they operate and about their outside earnings and their declarations. That is part of the Government’s role on transparency.
I will take away what the noble Baroness said about the specific Act and review and respond in due course. The issue that we are dealing with today shines a light on transparency regarding the influence of Russia and Iran, which have been notified under the current FIRS arrangement. That transparency will give confidence for parliamentarians in this House and in the House of Commons about the level of influence on us as Members from any outside body and who is behind any influence. That is a good thing when we are dealing with malevolent state actors, which both those nations are designated as. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know that it is not the done thing for the Front Bench to come back, but I want to come back on a question. The Minister is characteristically very good at answering questions from the Dispatch Box, so I do not mean this as a criticism. In July 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee found that China was not only seeking to influence but interfering in our internal affairs. Am I to take from the decision not to have China as part of the go-live scheme that the Government have determined that the committee was wrong and that China is not interfering in our political system?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I apologise if I slightly overlooked part of the noble Lord’s question. The Government have not made a judgment on any ISC comment or recommendations. However, we are continually keeping under review every nation in relation to a potential FIRS. We have announced Iran. Yesterday, we announced Russia. All other potential designations are kept under constant review. On China, as I have said in the House before, we co-operate where we can, we challenge where we need to and we ensure that we maintain our national security interests. We will keep that under review, but I cannot give the noble Lord a running commentary on potential FIRS designations. They are not a matter for today, which is about Russia and recommitting to the FIRS declaration on Iran.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, if the House will forgive me for a quick follow-up question, the Minister referred to sector guidance. Will he issue sector guidance relating to Parliament itself?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. The sector guidance is to ensure that, as the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, mentioned, we give guidance to academia, business or other sectors. As I envisage guidance for Parliament, there is transparency in that, from 1 July, any individual who seeks to influence Parliament will have to declare any influence that they have from Iran or Russia. If they do not declare it and subsequently are found to have it, they will face the full force of the law and potentially a five-year jail term.
I think that the guidance to Parliament is simply that Parliament can have trust and confidence that all-party groups do not have influence from those nations, unless those individuals declare that influence. If they hide it and it then comes to light, they will be prosecuted. That gives Parliament the confidence that it needs. The sector guidance is meant to be for academia, students, business and other issues. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that this is the general intention of this legislation.