Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
We are committed to reforming the special educational needs and disabilities system. We are also acting now through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, children not in school registers and a duty on local authorities to provide advice to eligible families. We will help local authorities identify and support these children to achieve and thrive.
Mark Sewards
I recently met a constituent at my surgery whose son has missed out on more than 800 hours of education. That is despite her attempts to find special educational provision for her son in 14 different schools across our region. She is now very concerned, because the council has said that he is at risk of criminal exploitation and cannot be left alone. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case and also provide reassurance that this Government will ensure that vulnerable SEND students get the educational provision they deserve?
Stephen Morgan
One of the ministerial team will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the important issues that he raises. All children are legally entitled to a full-time education, which is important for their educational progress, their wellbeing and their wider development. It is the local authority’s responsibility to arrange suitable education when it is not already in place, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contact his local authority to discuss this matter further.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I have met children who have experienced significant trauma, who are not in full-time education and who are supported through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. On 1 April, the Government announced that that funding would continue, which was welcome. However, on 14 April, it was announced that funding would be reduced by 40%, capping the support at £3,000 per child for the academic year. That reduction will be devastating for families and therapy providers. Does the Minister agree that without proper funding enabling specialist support, we risk placement breakdowns and increased pressure on already stretched mental health services?
Stephen Morgan
This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity so that every child can succeed and thrive. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) who is responsible for this area, has committed in the House to £50 million of funding for this programme. She will have heard the question and will respond in due course.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Having told this House in answer to an urgent question from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that the adoption and special guardianship support fund would continue, Ministers somehow did not manage to mention that the funding per child would be cut by 40%. They then slipped that out during recess. Meanwhile, Ministers will spend £90 million on advertising. Can they at least agree to publish the impact assessment on cutting what is available from this fund?
Stephen Morgan
As I said, this Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity. We will take no lectures from the Conservatives. They have absolutely no plan for education, other than to reintroduce private school VAT reductions. [Interruption.] What?
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
This Labour Government inherited a lose, lose, lose SEND system, in the words of the Tories’ last Education Secretary, but we have invested an additional £1 billion in high needs budgets and £740 million to pave the way for pupils with SEND to achieve and thrive in mainstream schools. Just last week in Derbyshire, I met families with experience of the SEND system who had been badly failed by the Tory county council. This Labour Government know that the SEND system needs far-reaching reform to deliver better life chances for all our children.
Charlie Dewhirst
The Secretary of State is well aware that the East Riding of Yorkshire receives the lowest level of funding for children with SEND, and I hope that the current review gives the Government an opportunity to rectify that. On a wider point, parents like me often look ahead to the school holidays with a sense of dread, because the provision for out-of-school activities for children with SEND is so limited and what is available is often expensive. As part of this review, will she look at what more can be done by local authorities to provide opportunities for young people with SEND outside term time?
Bridget Phillipson
I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this issue, and brings real passion and determination to trying to ensure that all children, including those with SEND, are given the support that they require. For the purpose of wider reform, I will look carefully at the funding issues that he has identified and also at the issue of broader support. Parents have the right to request wraparound holiday childcare places, and we updated the relevant guidance this year. We want to ensure that all children receive the support that they need, and that applies to childcare for SEND children aged up to 18.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The last Government left SEND education throughout the country in crisis. The National Audit Office found that there was no consistent improvement in outcomes from 2019 onwards. I saw that at first hand when I met Calder Valley parents of SEND children at Highbury School in Rastrick, where I saw committed parents and teachers struggling with a failed system. What will my right hon. Friend do to fix the mess that the last Government made of the system?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his passion and interest in this subject. Let me also congratulate him on his efforts in yesterday’s London marathon: he is not only a brilliant advocate for children, but a fantastic runner. He is right to say that this Labour Government have inherited a terrible mess when it comes to support with children with SEND. We want all children to have the support that they need in order to achieve and thrive, and as part of the wholesale reform that we will deliver, we will listen to parents, children, stakeholders and schools to ensure that we get the system right for children and deliver better outcomes, and that issues such as those identified by my hon. Friend are a thing of the past.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), but each child with special educational needs in the East Riding receives £968, whereas in Camden the figure is £3,564. I am sure she agrees that a child in Camden does not have four times the need of a child in the East Riding. Will she undertake to ensure, as part of the review, that in principle we will have fairer funding for children throughout the country with educational needs related to, for instance, dyslexia or autism at the end of that process, as opposed to where we sit now?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman brings real expertise to this issue, and I know that he also cares deeply about ensuring that we get the system right for children with SEND. Our allocations were made on the basis of the funding formulas that were already in place. We intend to look carefully at all these matters as part of our wider reform of the SEND system, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, they are complex, and it is important for any change to be made in a way that is responsible and focused on better outcomes for children.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The crisis in the SEND system is a source of distress for parents and children who have to fight far too hard for support, and for professionals working in local authorities and schools who face an extremely challenging funding situation. Does the Secretary of State agree that in this context blaming parents and GPs for the increase in the number of SEND diagnoses, as some Reform party politicians have done in recent days, is both inaccurate and insulting, and that solving the SEND crisis requires listening to parents and professionals rather than denigrating them?
Bridget Phillipson
I could not agree more, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the other members of her Committee for the important work that they are doing through their inquiry on this matter. We look forward to hearing more from them in due course.
My hon. Friend is entirely right: just days before the local elections, the comments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will have sent shivers down the spines of so many parents throughout the country. His comments were completely irresponsible and totally wrong. This Government are focusing on better outcomes for all children, including those with SEND.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Labour is transforming the Tories’ failed apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy. The Government offer a range of support to non-levy-paying employers, including assistance with training costs and payments to take on younger apprentices. New foundation apprenticeships in construction will unlock opportunities for up to 10,000 young people. Apprenticeships, participation, achievement and starts have already increased under Labour, and we are going further and faster for growth.
Robin Swann
As the Minister will know, employers in Northern Ireland pay substantially into the apprenticeship levy but have no direct access to it. What steps is the Minister taking to enable them to receive direct benefits through the levy, so that we too can enjoy the benefits of which she spoke in her answer when she was having a dig at the Conservative party?
Janet Daby
As I am sure the hon. Member knows, skills are a devolved matter, and funding in the devolved Administrations remains the responsibility of those Governments. However, we will continue to engage with them as we deliver the levy-funded growth and skills offer for England.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
My constituency of Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, in the Black Country, is a proud manufacturing area and the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Will the Minister please tell me what she is doing to increase the uptake of manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships across the country and in the west midlands?
Janet Daby
Too many young people have been locked out of accessing apprenticeship opportunities, and apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% between 2015-16 and 2023-24 under the previous Government. We are developing new foundation apprenticeships to give more young people a foot in the door at the start of their working lives.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity around the future of the apprenticeship levy is creating uncertainty among businesses, and is “worrying and destabilising”. Employers in universities are worried about plans to cut higher apprenticeships, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that plans to axe level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK altogether. Will Ministers agree to the proposal from the Campaign for Learning for a skills immigration worker test to be carried out before any cuts are made to level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not go from simply investing in British workers to just importing workers from other countries?
Janet Daby
We are very excited about what this Government are achieving for young people in our apprenticeship schemes. There are, of course, tough choices to take on how funding should be prioritised to generate opportunities for young people so that they can make a good start in fulfilling careers going forward. The Department has received a wide range of representations regarding level 7 apprenticeships, and we will communicate our decision going forward. We are absolutely committed to making sure that people are on the right apprenticeship courses and that we have a wide range of apprenticeships available.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. We are providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school so that every child and young person has access to early support, to address problems before they escalate.
Mr Forster
In my constituency I am in touch with a family of a child who has complex needs and severe mental health issues, who has not been able to go to school for a whole year. The child’s deteriorating mental health needs are not being met, because they have not been given a school that fits their child and adolescent mental health services assessment. Has the Minister made an assessment of how the Department might best avoid situations such as that, which leave children without the services they need?
Stephen Morgan
We will deliver on our commitment on mental health to make sure that it reaches every child. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the specific case that he raises.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Admissions to acute medical wards for children and young people with mental health concerns increased by 65% between 2012 and 2022. Given that gaining parity of esteem between mental health and physical health is so important, will the Minister update us on the talks with the NHS about ensuring that there is mental health provision and support in every school?
Stephen Morgan
I know my hon. Friend is a real champion of these issues. We will recruit an additional 8,500 new mental health staff to treat children and adults, as well as open new Young Futures hubs, which will provide support for children and young people across the country. The Department also provides a range of guidance and resources on promoting and supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing, and I thank him for his question.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Addictive algorithms that serve up harmful content are fuelling the children’s mental health crisis, as well as worrying behaviour both inside and outside the classroom. With almost two thirds of children having a social media account by the end of year 7, will Ministers commit to working with their counterparts in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to support the Liberal Democrats’ amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would stop tech companies trading on our children’s attention by raising the digital age of data consent from 13 to 16, so that they cannot process children’s data to feed toxic algorithms without parental consent?
Stephen Morgan
Protecting children from online harm is a cross-Government priority, and Ofcom’s draft code of practice for child safety sets out why it is so important that we continue with our efforts to protect children. From July, the child online safety regime will be fully in force, and Ofcom will be able to take robust enforcement action against those failing to comply with the child safety duties. I know the DSIT Secretary of State will want to look very closely at any future further proposals.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
The Tories left a trail of devastation across our schools, with buildings crumbling and teachers leaving in their droves. Through taking tough decisions at the Budget to fix the foundations, Labour has been able to increase school funding by over £3.2 billion. As a result, there is a forecast of £400 million of headroom in schools’ budgets nationally. The Tories’ only plan is to cut school budgets to restore private schools’ tax breaks. We are getting on with the job of delivering for children.
Mr Holden
Many heads, teachers and support staff who are worried about school budgets have been in touch with me. I recently had a letter, which was sent to the Secretary of State, from a therapist in a school, saying:
“I have recently been informed that I am being made redundant. Most of the schools in the trust are making cuts in order to stay afloat. Staff that are being cut or having hours reduced are teaching assistants, social, emotional and mental health staff and other support staff.”
How would the Minister answer the question posed by my constituent who is being made redundant, who asks:
“Why have Labour voted for unfunded pay rises and National Insurance Tax increases if they cannot support schools with the cost”
of these proposals?
Catherine McKinnell
The Government are committed to supporting teachers to stay in the profession and to thrive, which is why we accepted the schoolteachers pay review body 2024-25 recommendation in full, implementing a 5.5% pay award. That means that teachers and school leaders have had a combined increase of 17% over the last three years. We really need some humility from Conservative Members about where these problems stem from.
James Wild
Headteachers are warning that the gap in funding to cover the Chancellor’s jobs tax is equivalent to losing more existing teachers than the Government are planning to recruit. I have heard that message loud and clear from headteachers on my recent school visits, and unfunded pay awards will just make this worse. Why is the Education Secretary not standing up for our schools?
Catherine McKinnell
This Labour Government have made some tough decisions to fix the foundations of our economy and our public services. We make no apologies for doing what the last Government failed to do while in office. The extra money from national insurance contributions means we can protect key educational priorities. The Conservatives should be honest: what would they cut to pay for our schools?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Can the Minister solve this equation? VAT is pushing more students into the state sector and increases in national insurance are squeezing staff budgets, yet the Government say their ambition is to improve school standards and staff retention. How does that add up?
Catherine McKinnell
This is just scaremongering from the Conservative party, because the Tories have no plan for the future of our education system. They have no plan to deliver high and rising standards. Their only education priority is to hand tax breaks back to private schools, which means cutting free breakfast clubs, cutting school-based nurseries and cutting school building.
Mr French
I have been contacted by schools in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency that are outraged that Labour’s tax rises are forcing them to cut resources and staff while the Government demand that teachers do more. One teacher told me that, as a proud trade unionist, she had always voted Labour, but feels completely betrayed. She says:
“Labour have made the situation in schools 10x worse letting students and teachers down”.
She is right, is she not? Labour has betrayed teachers, students and schools.
Catherine McKinnell
Schools funding is increasing by over £3.2 billion compared with 2024-25, meaning that core school budgets will total over £64.8 billion this year. The last Government sat on the pay review recommendations, leaving it for this Government to clean up. The Conservative party’s record on education was dismal; school buildings were crumbling and teachers were leaving the profession. This Government are focused on returning education to the centre of public life.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I recently met student councillors Aadam, Olivia, Adam and Remy at Fixby junior and infant school. They gave me a guided tour of the school and highlighted how the playground was long overdue for an upgrade, but the school is facing increasing costs to resurface it. On behalf of the student council, can I ask the Minister what additional funding and support is available so that pupils can access high-quality play areas?
Catherine McKinnell
We absolutely support children to have the ability to play, and that is really important in school as well. We understand that some schools require additional support. We are working closely with the sector to ensure the best outcomes for all children, not just some children, as the previous Government focused on.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Local Conservative council candidates in Mansfield say on the doorstep that they want better funding for our schools. However, in the pursuit of restoring private schools’ tax breaks, which of these measures does the Minister think the Tories would cut first: new teachers, speech and language support, mental health counsellors, careers advice or work experience?
Mr Speaker
Order. I can save the Minister. That question is about Opposition policy, which is not her responsibility.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am deeply concerned about the funding of Howden-le-Wear primary school in my constituency. After years of real-terms cuts, it is now making four teaching assistants redundant. I will write to the Minister on that to seek her support, but the elephant in the room is that the pay of the chief executive of the multi-academy trust of which it is a member has increased £30,000 over the last two years, taking it to £275,000. That is the equivalent of 12 teaching assistants. Which does she think would be better: one CEO or 12 teaching assistants?
Catherine McKinnell
Executive pay must be justifiable and must reflect the responsibility an individual takes on, alongside local retention and recruitment needs. We engage with trusts on levels of executive pay, and I would be more than happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I am deeply concerned about Prudhoe community high school in my constituency, which was opened eight and a half years ago after being built under a Conservative Secretary of State and Conservative Education Department. Unfortunately, in February this year, cracks were discovered in the structure and the students are being taught in Washington, which is quite a significant journey. Can I ask the Minister to not only back the students and staff at Prudhoe community high school, but have an urgent investigation into how the school got into this state? Does she agree that, after 100 years in charge, the legacy of the Tories in west Northumberland is crumbling?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely recognise the challenges Prudhoe community high school is facing, in particular those due to sit their GCSE and A-level exams. I wish good luck to them and to all young people who over the Easter holidays have been working very hard towards their exams. Officials have been working closely with the school to ensure they are accommodated in the right way, but my hon. Friend raises a really important point about how a school built eight years ago is crumbling, and indeed all the schools across the country that are crumbling, after 14 years of a Tory Government that did not prioritise education.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Not only has the Education Secretary introduced a Bill to this place that will destroy standards in English schools, but now she has broken her promises on national insurance contributions compensation and is leaving schools in an impossible funding situation. Every MP has heard from headteachers who are stressed beyond belief at how to manage their funding. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that worried headteachers up and down the country will not have to make teachers redundant because of her broken promises: yes or no?
Catherine McKinnell
The right hon. Lady has a firmer grip on anonymous briefings in the papers than on the details of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. She is more focused on petty political games in Westminster than on improving the lives of children and families up and down the country. The Bill will get qualified teachers in front of classrooms. It will teach a cutting-edge curriculum. It will drive down the costs of sending children to school. It will provide breakfast clubs for children who need them. It will stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. It is a single most important piece of child protection legislation in a generation. The Conservatives voted against it. They can snipe from the sidelines; we will get on with delivering change.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Improving the quality of teaching is the best way to drive up standards in schools, which is why the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will get expert teachers in front of the classroom, driving high and rising standards. We are improving teacher training so that teachers are equipped to properly support pupils with SEND to achieve and thrive, but we know there is more to do. We are paving the way for far-reaching reforms through our plan for change.
Tim Farron
I thank the Minister for her reply. Two excellent teachers in my constituency—both experts in special educational needs provision—set up an organisation called the Mighty Oak Initiative, whose work is focused on helping young people with special educational needs who are not attending school at the moment, either not fully or at all. Its work is exemplary. Would the Minister meet Mighty Oak and myself to look at how we can support the organisation, learn from what it does and apply it elsewhere so that young people with special educational needs can get the best out of their educational experience, rather than being left on the sidelines?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and congratulate him on being on his feet after running the London marathon. We are absolutely committed to improving attendance rates of all children, but particularly those with SEND, and to addressing challenges in the school setting to ensure that children have the support to achieve and thrive. I would be happy to engage with him on any good practice in this area that can support us in our endeavours.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
In Derby, like in so many communities across the country, we face a lack of available SEND school placements with appropriately trained teachers. In ’23-24 alone, Derby city council spent £18 million on placements outside the city. It is wrong that pupils and their families are not getting the support that they need in their communities. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to increase the availability of SEND school places in Derby, in the east midlands and across the UK?
Catherine McKinnell
The Secretary of State had a useful and interesting visit to a school in Derbyshire to see for herself where progress is being made—or, unfortunately, where not enough is being made—to support children with SEND. We know that high-quality teacher training, particularly in SEND, is vital to ensure that every teacher is a teacher of special educational needs and disabilities. We will continue to work to ensure that local authorities deliver on their obligations to all the children in their local area, but particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
There are significant gaps in the understanding of autism profiles from teachers and school support staff. The evidence shows that there will be massive benefits in school attendance and educational performance if that understanding can increase. I urge the Secretary of State and the team to ask the specialist neurodiversity group that they have set up to look specifically at initial teacher training to see whether more autism-focused elements can be added.
Catherine McKinnell
This work is already ongoing. I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman is saying—we want to ensure that every teacher gets that high-quality training from their initial teacher training to their first years in a school to ensure that they are confident and able to teach children of a whole range of abilities. We are determined to have the right number of teachers with those skilled professional qualifications so that they are able to thrive in the profession, and, indeed, to support children to thrive, too.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Construction skills are essential to rebuild Britain as part of our plan for change and to deliver 1.5 million homes. This Labour Government are cutting red tape and reforming English and maths requirements to deliver 10,000 more apprenticeships a year and prioritising investment, with £625 million in additional spending to boost construction skills and train 60,000 additional skilled construction workers this Parliament—that is more foundation apprenticeships, more industry placements and support for further education, as well as 10 new technical excellence colleges specialising in construction skills across England.
Mark Ferguson
Our plans for the renewal of central Gateshead are by far the most exciting investment opportunity in north-east England, with £1.2 billion of inward investment, thousands of new homes and public transport infrastructure, meaning 15,000 construction jobs over the next few decades. Gateshead college, right at the heart of the development zone, is rapidly increasing places on its superb construction course, but much more is needed. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Gateshead college to discuss super-charging construction skills to deliver our plan for growth?
Bridget Phillipson
I have visited Gateshead college to see the fantastic work it does on digital skills, but I know that it has also developed innovative, flexible apprenticeships for careers in building design and construction, which I hope can be replicated elsewhere. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and perhaps to visit Gateshead college to learn more about what it is doing on construction.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Further education colleges such as Chichester college in my constituency are vital to the delivery of construction apprenticeships and skills training. Many colleges, however, have raised a concern with me that a loophole in the last Government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, which brought colleges back into the public sector, means that they cannot go out and get public investment into their colleges. What is the Minister doing to address their concerns and ensure that FE colleges can invest in the facilities and courses needed to train our future construction workforce?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady raises an important point about that reclassification. Through the construction announcement we made ahead of the spring statement, we created a capital pot for employer-led and match-funded projects to ensure that we are really working to deliver some of the programmes that are needed. We are also investing more in further education—again through boosting teaching in this area—and making sure that young people have access to industry placements, which we know are crucial in making sure that they succeed, especially in areas like construction.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Colleagues across the House will know about the “lose, lose, lose” system—to use the Tories’ own words—that we inherited. We are investing an extra £1 billion into high-needs budgets, £740 million into creating new places, and have restructured the Department to put SEND at its heart. The system needs far-reaching reform. We are engaging with parents and we have brought experts on board to assist us in this important work.
Mr Kohler
Merton council, in which most of my Wimbledon constituency is situated, tells me that there is a national shortage of SEND specialists— therapists and educational psychologists in particular—which is negatively impacting its and other local authorities’ ability to produce education, health and care plans in a timely fashion. This seems to be a particular problem across London, where in more than a decade there has been almost no growth in the number of local authority-employed educational psychologists, despite a large increase in demand. Will the Minister update the House on plans to address this issue and meet me to discuss the particular challenges in London?
Catherine McKinnell
We know that local authorities have been impacted by the increasing demand for education, health and care plans and workforce capacity issues, so much more efficient and effective service delivery and communication with schools and families will be central to making those improvements. We are working with local authorities and across the Department to ensure that there is as much effective early identification as possible. I am more than happy to continue engagement with the hon. Gentleman on these important issues.
Helen Maguire
I often hear accounts of constituents waiting over two years for education, health and care plan assessments from Surrey county council. When those assessments finally come, they are frequently carried out remotely, with assessors never actually meeting the child. Headteachers report that these delayed and inaccurate assessments result in inadequate funding, leaving schools under-resourced and simply unable to meet the children’s needs. Families in Surrey deserve assessments that are timely, thorough and centred around the child. What reassurances can the Minister offer families in Surrey that the broken system will be fixed, and when?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady sets out what is unfortunately a common picture for far too many children and families. We know that the system needs reform, and we are working at pace to deliver on that. We are working with experts and engaging with families and local authorities. We are determined to deliver a better outcome for children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families, and we will continue to update on progress as we make it.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
School support staff, teaching assistants and learning support assistants—the unsung heroes of our schools—often provide that crucial day-to-day support for children with SEND. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we upskill our school support workforce so that they are best placed to support those children?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the role of school support staff in supporting schools in general, and particularly children within the school system with special educational needs and disabilities. We want to encourage more inclusive mainstream schools, and we need a really strong and qualified workforce to deliver on that. I recently visited a school that had a fantastic group of teaching assistants who are undertaking the apprenticeship and specialising in issues such as special educational needs, to make sure that they can continue to develop their skills in the workforce. That is a really positive story, and one that I hope many schools can take up.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My constituent, Martyn Hodgson, has two adopted children. Both have suffered extensive trauma in their short lives, and the oldest son was diagnosed with autism and learning disabilities. They rely on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. He says:
“This support means so much to families of looked-after and adopted children. As a children’s social worker and adoptive parent, I have seen at first hand the impact this funding can have on their lives.”
For Martyn and so many others like him in Hartlepool and beyond, please will the Minister urgently reconsider the cuts to this fund?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely take on board the issues that my hon. Friend raises. Where people take on the responsibility of adoption, that is to be applauded and supported as far as possible. The Government are obviously considering all the financial matters in a very difficult context and making some difficult decisions, but we will continue to bear in mind the issues that he raises. We want to maximise the number of children who can access the fund and get the vital support that is needed.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
It was Labour that enshrined freedom of expression into law. That is why in January I announced plans to fix the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, making it robust and workable. Today I signed the commencement regulations to impose stronger free speech duties on higher education providers and the Office for Students from 1 August. We are taking common-sense decisions to fix the foundations of higher education and to deliver change for students.
Chris Ward
The Minister will know that the University of Sussex, one of my local universities, has recently been fined over £500,000—a record amount—following a three-and-half-year investigation by the Office for Students into freedom of speech. I know that the OfS is independent, but does the Minister share my concern that it reached this conclusion without ever speaking to the university or its current staff and students? Does she recognise the very wide implications of this ruling, and will she meet me and the University to discuss this?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend will understand the limitations on what I can say in answer to his question because this was a decision by the Office for Students, which carries out independent regulatory functions. I would be happy to arrange for him to meet the relevant Minister, but only once legal matters have concluded.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new freedom of speech provisions will ensure that, if any member of a university’s staff gives the same definition of a woman as the Prime Minister did in his most recent iteration of it, they will not be no-platformed or driven out of their job?
Bridget Phillipson
In setting out the Government’s position in the statement on Tuesday I was very clear that we accepted the Supreme Court judgment, and that is the right basis on which things ought to be taken forward. Through the commencement regulations, we have given tougher powers to the regulator. We have also reformed the regulator since July, with a much sharper focus on financial sustainability—something that I know is important to Members across the House.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
At the start of January, the Secretary of State said that she needed more time to consider the overseas funding transparency measures in our freedom of speech legislation. It is now nearly May. In the meantime, there have been several concerning the reports in the press about UK universities working with Chinese institutions that are designated as high risk and have ties to their defence and security apparatus. This legislation was passed in 2023. When will the Secretary of State reach a decision?
Bridget Phillipson
This is an important area, and this Government will always make sure that issues of national security come first. Measures are already in place to address foreign interference in the higher education sector, from vetting international students in sensitive areas of research to specific requirements around freedom of speech and expression. We continue to keep all these matters under review, and when we are in a position to do so I will of course update the House.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
My hon. Friend is a champion for young people with SEND and their families in his constituency. The Government have invested an extra £1 billion into high needs budgets to help local authorities to maintain their pupil referral units. Of course, the system we inherited from the Conservatives is broken, but we are paving the way for far-reaching reform to restore parents’ confidence and to support every child to achieve and thrive.
Josh Newbury
I recently visited Chaselea alternative provision academy in Cannock and met headteacher Mr Archer, who told me that it receives £8,300 less per pupil than the average for PRUs due to the unfair funding formula. With year after year of real-terms funding cuts under the previous Government, Chaselea had to stop all off-site education and halt new admissions, which means longer stays for students. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will ensure that PRUs have the resources and support they need to do the vital work of helping young people return to mainstream education?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that it is important that funding is available to support young people back into mainstream education. Staffordshire county council is being allocated, through the high needs funding block, over £143 million of its 2025-26 dedicated schools grant, and will need to consider how best to deploy that funding to achieve this aim. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be best served by a Labour council delivering on this issue and will want to think about that ahead of this Thursday.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
My constituent—a child who attends alternative provision—was physically restrained by his passenger assistant on school transport, which caused significant distress to him and his family. The Department for Education has published guidance on the use of reasonable force in schools in England, but it appears that there is a gap when it comes to the use of reasonable force on school transport. Will the Minister meet my constituent and me to discuss this case with a view to closing this loophole with the funding that it requires?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is one that we are looking at as a Department. Obviously, home-to-school transport is an important aspect of accessing education, but it needs to be safe for all children. I would be more than happy to discuss the issue further with him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
The Tories were more interested in picking ideological fights than ensuring that universities were financially sustainable. They left students and taxpayers to bear the brunt. Labour has taken tough decisions to shore up higher education as we pave the way for reform. We will fix the foundations of higher education to deliver change for students.
Rachael Maskell
Over half of UK universities, including the University of York, are again consulting on academic and staff redundancies. In line with the University and College Union’s “Stop the Cuts” week of action, does the Minister agree that we need an urgent review into higher education funding and visa arrangements for international students and their dependants, and that we need to protect students from poverty, to safeguard our world-class universities and, ultimately, drive research, innovation and their economic output?
Janet Daby
We are committed to securing the future of our higher education sector and we absolutely recognise its excellent economic value, which is crucial to our future economic growth. We welcome international students, who enrich our campuses, forge networks with domestic students and become global ambassadors. We will set out our plan for reform in the summer.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Over the past few months, Bournemouth University has had to take steps to suspend 15 of its courses due to financial pressures and rising operational costs. Most were arts and humanities courses, including English, photography, sociology and politics. What options exist for universities to access other sources of funding, and what assessment is being done to protect arts and humanities courses across our higher education sector?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for her level of concern. Higher education providers are autonomous and responsible for managing their own budgets. If they were at any risk, we would work with the Office for Students to ensure that students were protected. The Government reserve the right to intervene to protect the interests of students. The strategic priorities grant is also available to support teachers and students in higher education in more expensive subjects.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today in places such as Leicester, Birmingham, County Durham, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Northumberland, some of the last of our 750 early-adopter schools will launch their free breakfast clubs. We are now providing 180,000 pupils with the best start to their school day, boosting parents’ work choices and children’s life chances. Evidence shows why that matters so much: when schools introduce breakfast clubs, behaviour improves, attendance increases and attainment grows. It also gives parents 30 minutes of free childcare every day to juggle work and family life. That is why we will cement those freedoms and that opportunity through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, delivering on our plan for change.
Imran Hussain
To follow on from the two previous questions, 5,000 university jobs have been cut nationally, and the University and College Union projects that 10,000 more will be cut by the end of the year. In Bradford, up to 300 further jobs are at risk. Bradford University’s nursery service faces the chop, and some courses are long gone in a bid to meet funding shortfalls. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to protect staff and students in places like Bradford, given the growing crisis in higher education?
Bridget Phillipson
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. We are focused on putting universities on a firm footing. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), said, we will set out further reforms in the summer so that higher education delivers for students and the taxpayer. We had to make tough decisions to increase tuition fee limits in line with inflation for the next academic year, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) recognises, as I do, the enormous economic value of universities in towns and cities right across our country. That is why we have reformed the regulator: to put universities on a much firmer footing for the future.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Despite the Education Secretary’s best attempts to rewrite history, we Conservatives did not need a court to tell us that biological sex was real. She has on her desk the draft guidance for schools on gender questioning, and the final Cass report was published a year ago. If she is serious about protecting women and girls, why has she not published the guidance?
Bridget Phillipson
I am serious about protecting the rights of women and girls. That is why I ran a women’s refuge for children and women fleeing domestic abuse, fleeing male violence, fleeing some of the most unimaginable abuse that anyone could ever see. I need no lessons on the importance of such provision.
The shadow Secretary of State asks a specific question, which I will answer. This is a sensitive area. We are talking about children’s wellbeing—often very vulnerable children who are experiencing stress. Although I recognise the importance of providing clarity and guidance for school leaders, we have to get it right. The Conservatives published draft guidance for consultation only a matter of months before the general election. It is right that we take stock following the full and final review from Dr Cass, which we accept should be the basis for how we take things forward.
Laura Trott
That draft guidance was produced a year and a half ago. The Education Secretary wants to talk about her record. Well, let me remind her that one of her first acts on coming into post was to pause implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which would have protected gender-critical voices. She is more concerned about listening to student union activists than to women. Will she apologise to the gender-critical women who were forced to spend eye-watering sums on legal fees to fight for their rights because of her actions?
Bridget Phillipson
From that question, I do not think you would know who had been in government for the past 14 years, Mr Speaker. The Conservatives had ample opportunity to clarify the position. The ruling of the Supreme Court was that Labour’s Equality Act 2010 was the basis for its judgment confirming that biological sex should be the basis for provision of single-sex services. Alongside that, the Court was also clear that everyone in our country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and that trans people continue to receive protection in law. The Conservatives published guidance, in draft form, a matter of months of before the general election. It is right that we take this issue seriously and get it right. We do not need this shameless opportunism; this is about children’s wellbeing.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We have other Members to get in as well. I call the Secretary of State.
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in sending my best wishes to children in Scotland and across the UK as their exams get under way and thanking the brilliant staff working hard to support them. He is of course right about the many failures under the hopeless SNP Administration. Scotland deserves a new direction and a better education system and that will only come with Labour.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Last year the Secretary of State said:
“There can be no goal more important and more urgent than extending opportunities to our most vulnerable children”.—[Official Report, 24 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 700.]
Actions speak louder than words, so will she commit to reversing her 40% cut to the grants available through the adoption and special guardianship support fund so that vulnerable children are not made to pay the price for the Conservatives’ financial mess?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady will know that we have confirmed £50 million for ’25-26. Further considerations will be for the spending review. We have made changes in order to maximise the number of children who can access the fund. In addition to the funding that is provided there, we are also trialling kinship allowances, investing more in foster care and investing another £0.5 billion in providing local authorities with the support they need to provide preventive services. I agree that it is important that vulnerable children who have been through the adoption system and beyond get the support that they need to thrive.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school so that every young person has access to early support, including those who are neurodivergent. NHS-funded mental health support teams will continue to roll out across schools and are expected to cover at least 50% of pupils this year.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Stephen Morgan
Every incident of harm of a child, including this tragic case, is incredibly distressing. I am committed to doing everything possible to reduce levels of harm as part of our mission to give every child the best start in life. I would of course welcome a meeting with the hon. Member and Gigi’s parents.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
A number of families have contacted me to share their concerns about the impact of the delays to the adoption and special guardianship support fund and the cuts to the service, describing the very real and distressing strain on them. What consideration has the Department given to addressing their challenges, and what steps are being taken to ensure that adoptive families receive the timely support they so desperately need?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are providing £50 million through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We are also funding Adoption England with £8.8 million to improve adoption services. This includes new support for the first 12 to 18 months after placement and better support for families in crisis. Adoptive families may also access mainstream family health services, and we are doubling the investment in these services to over £500 million.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Bridget Phillipson
We will set out our approach to the recommendations in the usual way, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that one of the very first acts of this incoming Labour Government was to accept the previous recommendation to fund the 5.5% pay award for teachers that had been sat on the desk of the Conservative Government.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Sadly, after years of Tory Government, fewer younger people in Southampton Itchen are successfully engaged in employment, education or apprenticeships compared with the national average. What specific steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that apprenticeship and university routes are equally valued and equally accessible to the young people in my constituency?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Our youth guarantee will provide tailored support to young people, helping them to access high-quality education, training and employment. We want young people to be earning and learning, and we are wasting no time about that. Youth foundation apprenticeships provide more opportunities for young people, and we want to ensure that we expand access to university for disadvantaged students and that all learning is on an equal footing.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. I know that the Isle of Wight local authority is working to address the issue of surplus primary places in the best way. I recognise the challenge around funding. It will take some time to look at that, but the system is designed not to give every school the same amount of money but to address some of the needs that he outlines. I am more than happy to continue this discussion, as I appreciate the issue is very important in his constituency.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Has the Department made an estimate of how many children with SEND are at risk of losing therapeutic support as a result of the recent changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund?
Janet Daby
I hear the concerns around the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We have had to make some really difficult decisions, but we have chosen the fairest approach to manage tight resources in the face of increasing demand for support. We will continue to review the situation.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I recently had the opportunity to visit Echelford primary school in my constituency, where I saw an extraordinarily different approach to oracy from those I have seen in other schools. Will the schools Minister visit to see that for herself?
Catherine McKinnell
We are always looking for good approaches to raising standards, whether in phonics, maths or oracy, and to giving children the confidence that will set them up for life. I would be keen to hear more details about the programme that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I have recently been informed that teaching assistants employed through agencies in Blackpool are being paid under the national living wage and sent into schools with positive Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and that the profit margins of those agencies are as high as 35% to 40%, with agencies making £100 a day on candidates. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss those issues that are facing Blackpool?
Catherine McKinnell
Support staff, temporary staff and agency staff can provide important support to schools where it is needed, but that must be done in a fair way that helps to manage school budgets and provide the outcomes for children that we know a stable teaching force can bring. I would be more than happy to discuss the particular issues that my hon. Friend raises with him.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Bromley council has the second highest rate of education, health and care plans in London, and is in desperate need of extra special school provision. The council is looking to bring forward a 200-space special school but has met with a lack of innovation at the Education and Skills Funding Agency. Will the Minister meet me and local officials to discuss how we can break those bureaucratic blockers and deliver this provision?
Catherine McKinnell
Yes, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month, I held a public meeting in my constituency with over 100 parents, carers and pupils to discuss our concerns about the quality of secondary education in my constituency. It is an absolute scandal that over 60% of young people leave school without a pass—level 4 or higher—in maths and English GCSE, a trend that has got worse under the Conservative party. Will the Minister commit to driving up standards in my local schools as a priority for this Labour Government?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for better outcomes for the young people in her constituency, and I commend her approach for engaging so widely with parents, who I know share her concerns. I am more than happy to give her that commitment. Everything we do in the Department is about driving opportunity, and that means driving up standards in every school, in every part of the country.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
This week, on a visit to a school in my constituency, I was told about a boy with SEND who has been temporarily excluded five times. He is extremely dysregulated and vulnerable and has been waiting for two years for specialist provision. The school has tried to get him to the top of the mental health list but has been told that it cannot. What should I say to his headteacher, who is at the end of her tether?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady and I have discussed some of the challenges in her local area in relation to delivering better outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and she is right to raise this issue of ensuring that the health workforce can back up the change needed in education settings. We are working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that we take a joined-up approach to improving outcomes.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Welsh universities, including Bangor University, face very real challenges as a direct result of policies introduced by the last UK Government. Will the Minister update us on conversations that her Department is having with the Welsh Government around higher education in Wales?
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is aware that education is devolved and that the Welsh Government are responsible for education policies in Wales, including those covering universities, but I assure her that the Department for Education engages with the devolved Government at ministerial and official levels on a range of areas covering education and students.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
What assurances can the Minister provide to concerned adoptive parents in my constituency who benefited from the match funding element of the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and whose funding could be cut from £10,000 to £3,000? Will she consider reintroducing this vital element of the ASGSF?
Janet Daby
The adoption and special guardianship support fund still enables those who are eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support to meet individual needs. The fund is important, which is why we have continued to fund it, but it is not the only source of adoption and kinship support, responsibility for which lies with local authorities and regional adoption agencies. Our £8.8 million of funding to support Adoption England can assist that.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning, I had the pleasure of visiting Milwards primary school, which is one of the many brilliant primary schools in my constituency. One of the main issues raised by primary schools is school readiness, which was hugely impacted by the closure of Sure Start. What are this Government doing to ensure that young people are ready for school and ready to learn?
Stephen Morgan
I know that my hon. Friend is a huge champion for children in his constituency. This child-centred Government want to break down the barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child gets the best start in life. That is why we are introducing a number of initiatives through our plan for change, including good-quality early education, increasing school-based nurseries and investing in other initiatives that support a child’s development.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What steps will be taken to ensure that there are therapeutic and counselling opportunities in all primary schools across the United Kingdom to ensure the earliest of interventions for pupils who could struggle in their education?
Stephen Morgan
Education is a devolved matter, but I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion on these issues, and I am very happy to meet with him. We are committed to rolling out mental health support teams to every school in England.
Headingley Incident
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) to ask his urgent question, I must advise the House that although the matter is not yet sub judice, for the purpose of the rules of this House relating to these matters, Members should exercise care in what they say about a live criminal investigation. I urge Members to avoid speculating about the guilt or innocence of any person. On the identity of the person who has been arrested and the motive for the attacks, Members should take care not to say anything in this House that might prejudice a criminal trial. Members may ask about the emergency services, the response to the attacks, the support for victims’ families and other connected matters, but I urge the utmost caution in avoiding any remarks that might be prejudicial.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the incident that occurred in Headingley on 26 April.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
First, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this urgent question. I begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this horrific violent incident in Headingley, Leeds, on Saturday. I understand the shock that this incident has caused among the local community in Headingley, and I understand that my hon. Friend will want to get rapid answers for the constituents he represents. At the same time—as you have pointed out, Mr Speaker—this is a live police investigation, and we all have a responsibility not to say anything that would interfere with that investigation or any legal proceedings that may follow from it.
For the benefit of the House, though, I will recap what the police have themselves said about the incident and the ongoing investigation. On the afternoon of Saturday 26 April, West Yorkshire police were called to reports of a male on Otley Road, Headingley, Leeds, in possession of a crossbow and a firearm. Armed police arrived at the scene at 1453 hours, where the suspect was found with a self-inflicted injury. He was taken to hospital and remains in a life-threatening condition. On arrival, officers also found two members of the public who were injured and were admitted to hospital. One victim has now been discharged from hospital; the other has undergone surgery after suffering life-threatening injuries. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families. Counter Terrorism Policing North East has taken the lead for the investigation into this attack, and is now working with West Yorkshire police.
As I have said, this is an ongoing investigation and I cannot comment on details of the case, other than to note that we must allow the police time and space to conduct their investigation. Having said that, we are very aware of concerns about the use of crossbows in violent attacks. We share that concern, and last week, the Government tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to strengthen age verification controls on both the online sale and delivery of crossbows. Last year, the previous Government held a call for evidence on licensing systems that could apply to crossbows, to which they did not respond. As part of our wider work to get dangerous and lethal weapons off Britain’s streets, we will shortly publish our response to that consultation, setting out how we plan to go further to limit the availability and accessibility of crossbows in this country.
Alex Sobel
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you for granting this urgent question after the harrowing attack in Headingley on Saturday. My community is still reeling in shock and disbelief at the horrific act of violence that occurred in our midst on Saturday afternoon.
I begin by expressing my concern and sending my best wishes for the recovery of the two women who were harmed in the egregious attack this weekend. I also express my gratitude for the heroic efforts of the members of the public and of our local community who intervened. The details of how they helped are still emerging, but I already know that without them, we may have had a far worse tragedy. I also thank all the emergency services and Leeds city council for their swift response, and for ensuring that the situation was brought under control and isolated. The fact that this most heinous crime was committed against two women is not lost on anyone, and I thank West Yorkshire police for committing to increase its presence in the area and working to ensure the safety of women and girls. The response to this horrific attack is a testament to the Headingley community, Leeds, and the people of West Yorkshire. Our community is strong and we will show that we remain united. We will not allow this to divide us.
The key suspect was carrying a range of lethal weapons when the attack was carried out, and the two victims were both shot by crossbows, a weapon that has been used in murders before. I know that the Home Office issued a call for evidence on strengthening controls on crossbows on public safety grounds, which ran from 14 February to 9 April last year. Will the Minister now publish a response on providing further controls on the use, ownership and supply of crossbows after Saturday’s horrifying attack? We need to see action taken on those lethal weapons.
Police inquiries are ongoing, but we know that this is a critical incident and that the lead force is Counter Terrorism Policing. The fact that an individual was able to plan and carry out such a vile, hideous attack on two women requires us to ask questions about how our intelligence gathering operated prior to the attack. Can the Minister reassure me, my community and the House that there will be a thorough investigation into what intelligence gathering had been undertaken on the suspect, and whether lessons can be learned for the safety and security of the public?
I pay tribute once more to the local community in the area that I am proud to call home, and thank them for their bravery and kindness, as I do to our excellent emergency services in West Yorkshire.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the community, the members of the public who came forward when the attack was happening and the emergency services, who, as ever, run towards danger when many others run in the opposite direction. It is absolutely right that we pay tribute in the way that he has done. I hope that my response to his urgent question offered him some reassurance about the Government’s approach towards crossbows and what more we want to do. As I said, we will shortly publish our response to the consultation that took place last year. The investigation is under way; I know that it will be thorough and comprehensive, and that all the issues he raised will be looked at.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Everybody will have found the reports about this incident, which was of great severity, deeply concerning. I would like to express my deepest sympathies to those who were injured during this horrendous attack. Our thoughts are with them at this time. I also thank the public, the police and the emergency services more broadly for their response to the incident.
There are two aspects that I would like to touch on with the Minister. West Yorkshire police has said that counter-terrorism police are involved in responding to the incident. We have heard from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation about the importance of not allowing an information vacuum to form. Will the Minister ensure that there is as much transparency as possible in the release of information about this case?
Secondly, I am aware that in the aftermath of the incident, although the police are not seeking anyone else in connection with it, there will be an increased police presence across Headingley and the broader city of Leeds in the coming days and weeks. Given that this horrific attack was on two young women, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether there have been any discussions about what that presence will entail and what measures are being taken, in particular to ensure that young women and girls feel safe in Leeds following this incident.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments; he is absolutely right to praise the public of Headingley and the emergency services. The policing presence in Headingley and across Leeds is an operational matter for the chief constable, and I know that he will be mindful of the needs of the community in making clear what police presence is needed.
I am mindful of the issue around transparency and the flow of information, but again, this is a live police investigation. The police make decisions about what information is disclosed at the appropriate time. As I have said—and as you have set out to the House, Mr Speaker—it is important that there is not speculation at this stage, and that we allow the police to do their job and to investigate, look at the evidence and take the appropriate action as and when.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) in expressing my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims of this horrendous crime. West Yorkshire police is investigating two recent murders in my constituency of Shipley. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that West Yorkshire police has the necessary resources to investigate not only this most recent incident in Headingley, but serious crime taking place in the area more broadly?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. Let me reassure her that all police forces have additional resources in this new financial year—up to £19.6 billion is going into policing. We know that there are challenges in policing, but I have every confidence that West Yorkshire police has the resources it needs. West Yorkshire has a very effective mayor and deputy mayor, who leads on policing, and they make the case for their police force very well indeed.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
No one should have to live in fear of such horrific violence. The appalling events in Headingley on Saturday have left a community shocked and two women with really serious injuries. My thoughts and those of all the Liberal Democrats are, of course, with the victims, their families and all those affected by a crime of such awful brutality. This is yet another devastating example of the violence faced by women and girls across the country, which we must all work to end. It is also yet another example of a violent attack in which a crossbow has been used—one of too many in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), among others, has urged the Government to review and strengthen crossbow regulations. I note the Government’s amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, including new clause 70, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Can the Minister confirm when the Government’s formal response to the call for evidence will be published?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member who leads on this subject for the Liberal Democrats. We all are committed to ensuring that violence against women and girls is halved over the next decade. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting with me, is leading on that. It is an important strand of the safer streets mission.
I am pleased to hear of the support from the Liberal Democrats for our ongoing work on crossbows, particularly through the Crime and Policing Bill. We will bring forward details of the Government’s approach, and the response to the consultation, very shortly. I have taken a particular interest in this issue, and I have met families who have been affected by violent crossbow attacks. I recently met Laura Sugden up in Driffield, who lost her partner, Shane Gilmer. Just this morning, I met Joan Whelan, whose partner, Dave Peck, was killed in 2022 by someone using a crossbow. I am aware of the need for action on this issue.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I wish the victims of the Headingley attack a full recovery. My thoughts are with their friends and family and the community. Just this morning, I welcomed Joan Whelan to Westminster to meet the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire—I thank the Minister for her time, and her sage advice and counsel—following the tragic loss of Joan’s beloved partner, Dave Peck. Dave was fatally struck by bolts fired from a crossbow into an open busy pub in Westcliff in my constituency of Southend East and Rochford in 2022. Dave was affectionately known as West Ham Dave, and was a larger-than-life character. Dave and Joan together had 22 grandchildren, who no longer have their grandad in their life. The crossbow was purchased by a resident with paranoid schizophrenia who had a history of mental health struggles. It was purchased freely, unchecked and unlicensed, on the internet. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to stop crossbows falling into the wrong hands? Will she join me in thanking Joan for her bravery in sharing her story?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Joan to see me today. She is an incredibly brave and impressive person, and we heard directly from her what the loss of Dave meant to her, her family and her 22 grandchildren. In the few words that my hon. Friend used, he made the case effectively for further changes to the law around crossbows.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister mentioned her meeting with Laura Sugden, and I pay tribute to Laura for her campaigning on the issue. It is more than seven years since Anthony Lawrence brutally murdered Laura’s partner Shane Gilmer. Laura was attacked with a crossbow, and was pregnant at the time. I know that a response to the consultation is coming, but can the Minister give us more detail about the timetable for that response? What next steps will we likely see?
Dame Diana Johnson
I also pay tribute to Laura, an incredibly brave woman who faced a horrific attack when her neighbour got into the house through the roof space and attacked her and her partner. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot give a specific date. I used to really dislike it when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches and a Government Minister would say “shortly” or “imminently”, but I can guarantee that I am doing my best to ensure that we respond to the consultation from last year as soon as possible.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I express my sympathies and those of the people of Central Ayrshire to the victims of this horrific attack, and those affected by it. I note the presence of the Mayor of West Yorkshire in the Gallery. Does the Minister support the excellent work that the mayor is leading to keep women and girls safe in West Yorkshire? Will the Minister commit to working with mayors, and police and crime commissioners, across the country to tackle the rise of misogyny?
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not want to get into trouble with you, Mr Speaker, but I am very conscious of the excellent work done by the Mayor of West Yorkshire and her deputy, Alison Lowe, on violence against women and girls, and of their real commitment to making policies that will have a dramatic effect on the women and girls of West Yorkshire.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Unhinged individuals are roaming the streets of our towns and cities with crossbows, knives, saws and other dangerous weapons, and no tinkering around with legislation or licensing will stop this madness. Is it not about time we had mandatory jail sentences for people who carry such weapons?
Dame Diana Johnson
We are working as quickly as possible to understand and identify the nature and scale of the growing cohort of predominantly young men and boys who are fixated with violence. We want to ensure that we have a proper approach and multi-agency interventions to manage the risk that they pose. The Prime Minister has already said that if the law needs to change in recognition of this new and dangerous threat, we will change it, quickly.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming forward to respond to the urgent question. Let me put on record my deepest sympathies for the victims of this terrible incident and their families. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the victims of crossbow attacks, and I find the whole issue very shocking, especially as someone who regularly visits Westcliff-on-Sea. Is there any more that we can do as a Government to support victims of these terrible attacks and their families?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of how victims of such attacks are supported. As I said, this morning I talked to Joan about the support that she received after the horrific attack on Dave Peck, and I have heard about the support and help that Laura Sugden has received since she was attacked with a crossbow; but I am well aware that there is more to do, and I will talk to my counterpart in the Ministry of Justice about that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister share my surprise at just how easy it is to get hold of one of these weapons? A few clicks will buy someone a Guillotine X+ compound crossbow for £324.91 plus £6.99 for delivery, or a Jaguar Deluxe for £129.95, with free delivery. These things are as deadly as shotguns, yet we do not license them as such. Will the Minister, in the plans that she has heralded, consider seriously going down the same route as other European countries and ensuring that these deadly weapons are properly controlled?
Dame Diana Johnson
In just a few sentences, the right hon. Gentleman has made a compelling case for why change is needed in this regard. I cannot go any further today, but I hear what he says, and I share his concern about the fact that people can go online and, with a few clicks, buy one of these items.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
A number of people have mentioned to me that they have been to university in Leeds, or have kids who live in “Below Clarey” in Harrogate and go to university in Leeds. There is quite a high-density student population in the area. What conversations have the Government had with local authorities and other partners to ensure that university students and parents feel supported and reassured? May I also echo the sentiments of Members on both sides of the House who have thanked the emergency services?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about reassurance for the public, so that they can feel confident about going out in local communities. I know that West Yorkshire police is ensuring that through the extra police presence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) will be working with community groups and the university. Also, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security were properly briefed about the incident over the weekend. There is engagement across the board, and all the key stakeholders are part of those conversations.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I join all the other Members in wishing the victims of this horrific crime a speedy recovery. I note that Counter Terrorism Policing has been involved in intelligence-gathering, and that there is concern about online incitement to violence. Will the Minister join me in condemning the recent statement by the so-called Irish rap band Kneecap, who are reported to have told their audience that they should kill their local MP, and that the only good Tory is a dead Tory?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, of course I would condemn any such comments. Clearly, I cannot comment on anything that was posted online in relation to the case we are talking about today, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we work in partnership with technology companies to ensure that they understand their responsibility to tackle illegal content on their platforms, and we have been clear that they need to act quickly to identify and remove such content from their platforms once it has been posted. More generally, the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on platforms to swiftly identify and remove illegal content, which we expect them to abide by. Furthermore, these platforms have a moral responsibility to keep their users and the general public safe, and we expect them to take all reasonable steps to do so.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very important that this matter is raised, but I am not sure that it fits in here. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had raised the issue in the House by making a point of order at the end.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Our thoughts are with the victims and, indeed, with the police officers and the emergency services workers, who responded in such a positive way. Like others, I believe that such incidents highlight the fact that police officers, and particularly police community support officers, need to be on the ground so that they can deal with the use of crossbows, put in place measures to ensure public safety, and send the message that the police are close by. That needs to be the case not just in Headingley, but across all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes the case for what this Government are doing on neighbourhood policing. We are putting 13,000 police officers and PCSOs back into local areas and communities to provide not only a police presence, but public reassurance, which is so important to the people we all represent.
Child Rape Gangs
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the child rape gangs scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The shadow Home Secretary was away when I updated the House on the Government’s response to the independent national inquiry into child sexual abuse, and on the action that we are taking to investigate and tackle child grooming gangs across the country. As I have said many times, people up and down this country are understandably horrified by the appalling crimes committed by despicable grooming gangs. Children were subjected to the most unthinkable sexual violence. Frontline services, local authorities and elected politicians turned away or even blamed the children, rather than their rapists. I know this because I speak to victims week in, week out, and I have done so for decades.
This Government are determined to get to the truth of both historical and current grooming gangs, to ensure that perpetrators are punished and to deliver justice and accountability for victims and survivors. That is why we are pressing ahead with the key recommendations of the independent inquiry, including the mandatory duty to report. Baroness Casey, who conducted a no-holds-barred review into grooming gangs’ offending in Rotherham, is currently overseeing a national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The audit will identify what further work is needed. It is looking at the scale, nature and profile of group-based abuse, including the characteristics of offenders. It will conclude in the coming weeks, and I have already committed to publishing the findings.
The Home Secretary and I have always been clear that the first priority in tackling this heinous offending is getting perpetrators behind bars, and getting justice for the victims and survivors. That is why all police forces in England and Wales have been asked to review historical grooming gangs investigations that were closed with no further action, and to pursue new lines of inquiry and reopen investigations where appropriate.
We are also going further than ever before to support local areas to hold independent local inquiries, which can drive action and accountability at a local level. That is what inquiries in Telford, Manchester and Rotherham have delivered effectively, and that is the approach we would like to see rolled out elsewhere. In January, we said that we would support five local inquiries. We are moving ahead with that commitment, and we have confirmed that funding will be made available to Oldham council as part of this work. We are currently working with a range of experts to develop a best practice local inquiries framework, so that local areas that conduct inquiries do so in a way that actually delivers justice, accountability and truth, commanding the support of victims and survivors.
Our focus is on delivering meaningful, tangible change for victims and survivors. That means delivering on the key recommendations of Professor Jay’s national inquiry, getting perpetrators behind bars and, most importantly of all, protecting children today.
Chris Philp
The whole nation is shocked by the rape gangs scandal. Thousands of young teenage girls were systematically raped over years by men of predominantly Pakistani heritage—girls such as Jane, who was repeatedly gang raped at the age of just 12. The police found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting the illegal immigrant, they arrested her. That is sick. The last Government took action by setting up the wider Jay inquiry and the grooming gangs taskforce, but the truth is that that is not enough.
There is now clear evidence that those in authority covered up these rapes because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani heritage. Last week, I met retired Detective Chief Inspector John Piekos. In Bradford, he witnessed the abuse of a young girl in a car, but he was then instructed by a chief superintendent to drop the matter in order to avoid antagonising Bradford’s Muslim community. Covering up the rape of young girls for that reason is one of the most immoral things I have ever heard, yet not a single person—not one—has ever been held to account for these cover-ups.
That is why we need a national statutory public inquiry that can compel the production of evidence. Even last year, authorities in Manchester were still covering up, leading the chairs of the local Manchester inquiry to resign. Five local inquiries, which cannot compel the production of evidence, just will not do. Fifty towns were affected, not five. Bradford, where some of the worst abuse occurred, is refusing to co-operate with any inquiry at all. There has never been an inquiry in Bradford, because the council is refusing to participate.
The Home Secretary promised on 16 January that Baroness Casey would complete a rapid audit within three months. Three months have now passed and we have heard nothing whatsoever. The Government said there would be five local inquiries, but we know nothing about four of them. The man charged with setting them up, Tom Crowther, told the Home Affairs Committee on 1 April that he had been sidelined by the Minister over there, and “did not know” what was going on.
Finally, I recently met Marlon West, whose daughter was trafficked, abused and raped by mainly Asian men, including in Bradford. He said that this Government should be ashamed of themselves, and they should hold a national inquiry. Jane, who was trafficked and gang raped at 12, also wants a statutory national inquiry. Labour Mayor Andy Burnham, Harriet Harman and the Labour MP for Rotherham—the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—all agree. So will the Minister do what they, and Marlon and Jane, are all begging for, and hold a national inquiry so that those who covered up this scandal are at last held to account?
Jess Phillips
I thank the shadow Home Secretary. I do not need to read out the things found in other local inquiries to know, because I speak to the victims. I spoke to some of the victims of grooming gangs this morning, and I will speak to some more tomorrow. I have spoken to them from Oxford, from Birmingham, from Rochdale, from Rotherham and from Oldham. I know exactly the issue of the cover-up, as does everybody already, because of the many local inquiries that have told us this happened and the national inquiry that has told us there were cover-ups.
What we must focus on is making sure, as happened in Telford, that there is a local process of accountability that actually changes things on the ground, and that is what I will do. I have been trying to change things on the ground all my life, since the very first time I met a girl who had been ignored. I will continue to do that, and do what is right for the victims.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I genuinely welcome the renewed focus on this issue in this Parliament. In the Home Affairs Committee we have heard evidence from Professor Jay about her report, which made a number of recommendations in November 2022. She then set out her efforts in trying to get the previous Conservative Government to act on any of those recommendations for a period of over 90 weeks. She spoke about begging two Home Secretaries to take action. She spoke about talking to a chief of staff to one of the former Tory Prime Ministers, who ignored her. Does the Minister agree with me that rather than words now, action is far more important?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree that action is what is needed, which is exactly why the Home Secretary has written to all police forces in England and Wales seeking to ensure that more arrests are made in these cases. The grooming gangs taskforce has in the past nine months made 597 arrests, surpassing the entire previous year, because we are so heavily focused on ensuring that these people end up behind bars. I think Professor Jay was ignored by the previous Government, and had we had mandatory reporting 10 years ago, when the current Home Secretary asked for it, perhaps more people would have been held accountable.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
No child should ever endure sexual exploitation or abuse. Such horrific and unacceptable crimes must have no place in our society. Victims and survivors of these crimes must be at the centre of our thoughts whenever we discuss these matters. We owe it to them not just to offer words of support, but to deliver justice and bring offenders to account. That also means taking firm preventive action to protect future generations from such harm. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, published its recommendations in 2022. Will the Minister please set out a clear timetable for the full implementation of the Jay inquiry’s recommendations? Does the Minister agree that a duty of candour, via a Hillsborough law, would bring transparency and accountability to any future inquiry? Will the Government commit to a timetable for delivering that?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady, and I agree with her that inquiries are only worth anything if we crack on. That is why, when I came to this House before the recess, I said it would go alongside the publishing of an action plan on the recommendations of the Jay report and Jay’s work into grooming gangs. That has all been published as part of a Government plan, but it is only the beginning. Actually, this is going to take years and years. On the duty of candour, it seems appalling that we have to ask people to tell the truth, yet here we are. Of course, that is what we must be striving for, as the hon. Lady says, on behalf of the victims and survivors.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
As we have heard, when Alexis Jay came to the Home Affairs Committee, she told how she had pushed and pushed for the implementation of her long and wide-ranging report, but heard nothing back from the previous Government. I welcome today’s urgent question, because this issue requires an urgency that we did not see from the previous Government. As someone who has worked on protecting the victims of child trafficking I know we need local responses, but there is an element for national co-ordination. Before recess, the Minister announced the creation of the child protection authority. Can she tell us more about the remit and the role that organisation will have in ensuring that, nationwide, we clamp down on this horrific crime?
Jess Phillips
Yes. As was outlined in Professor Alexis Jay’s report, the need for an overreaching authority to ensure accountability across the child protection system was made very clear. As we roll out the new authority, we are consulting many experts on what exactly it needs to look like and ensuring that we get the very best possible. I am sick of hearing lessons learned in a serious case review about a child rape, a child rape gang or a child death. There needs to be genuine accountability and things need to change.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that policy must be victim-centred and that we must put victims at the heart of everything we do. Could she provide more information on when we will know about the remaining four locations? What will she do to ensure that the councils that are reluctant to be part of this work are compelled to do so?
Jess Phillips
We have committed to five, but I expect to go further.
Jess Phillips
I will answer the question of when. The framework for what local authorities will be tasked with will be released later in May, as will Baroness Casey’s review, which I have committed to publishing. All those things will be dependent on each other. I cannot stand here and say exactly what that will look like, because I do not know what Baroness Casey will say about any particular area and what I might need to focus on. I will go on the basis of facts—something that does not happen very often in this debate, I have to say. I will follow the facts; wherever they tell me that there are victims who need help, that is where I will go.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Before being elected to this place, I worked for a national social work organisation, and I know my hon. Friend the Minister similarly worked with victims of crime before entering this place. It is so important that we keep those victims at the forefront of our considerations. In the light of that, how does the Minister envisage the child protection authority working, and how will victims of crime be supported by it?
Jess Phillips
As my hon. Friend points out, I have spoken to and worked with victims of crime for many years. What they want, fundamentally, is for the things that happened to them not to happen to children today. That is the change they wish to see more than anything—more than they want any sort of justice. Ensuring that the new authority does that, and that it is not just words on paper, will therefore be absolutely vital and will deliver that fundamental victims’ need. When we consult experts on the child protection authority, we will ensure that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has panels of specialist victims groups to assist its work, will be part of that.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In February, a brave group of victims and a leading child abuse lawyer wrote to the Home Secretary warning her that the rape gangs scandal across the Bradford district is likely to be one of the most significant of its kind in the UK, and that leaders in Bradford are deliberately seeking to avoid the commissioning of an in-depth inquiry for fear of unearthing a significant problem. The letter, which still sits with the Home Secretary, outlines the dreadful deadlock that we are in across the Bradford district, where there is overwhelming victim-led support for a full inquiry, but a council unwilling to commission one. Does the Minister believe that victims and families across Keighley and the wider Bradford district deserve a full rape gangs inquiry, and if not, why not? If she believes they do deserve an inquiry, what powers will she use to overrule Bradford council if it continues to ignore victims’ wishes?
Jess Phillips
Once again, I praise the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue over a number of years; others have come to it more recently. We have a meeting in our diary, so I will make him an offer: I would very much like to meet the victims he is talking about. I will gladly sit down with them. I want the hon. Gentleman to know that he has my guarantee that, if in the work Baroness Casey is doing around problem profiling and police forces across the country local authorities are found to have problems, I will pursue them.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
On Friday, in Rochdale, I met Jayne Ward and her colleagues from St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre in Manchester, which is staffed by former police officers, nurses and social workers who are all committed to helping victims and survivors particularly in areas such as Rochdale which have suffered from grooming gang abuse. They told me that their priorities are cutting the courts backlog which means that cases are having to wait until March 2027 to go to trial, longer-term funding commitments to help groups such as theirs, and a wider recognition that most sexual abuse and child rape is perpetrated not by strangers, but by family and friends. Does the Minister agree that those should be our priorities, too?
Jess Phillips
I agree with every one of the asks of that sexual assault referral centre. I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to try to do all those things. Unfortunately, we cannot mend a very broken system overnight. It is very important for me to say, though, that the cases of grooming gangs that I have come across are horrible—some of the worst I have ever seen—yet sometimes we forget how harrowing it is for children who have been raped by their fathers, their stepfathers or people in children’s institutions. There is no hierarchy; they all deserve our love, care and dedication to taking action for them.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Thousands of young, white, British working-class girls have been raped, tortured and abused by Pakistani grooming gangs, yet the Minister refuses to support a full national public inquiry. What I want to know is: is she part of the cover-up?
Jess Phillips
That does not deserve a response—and I actually quite like the hon. Gentleman. I have spent my entire career helping—[Interruption.] I wonder how many victims of grooming gangs he has sat and held hands with in court, and for how many he has gone round to their house in the morning to get them out of bed to get them into a courtroom. There is no way that I would be part of any cover-up. I will do everything I can, under a Home Secretary who will do everything she can, to ensure that those who are responsible are held accountable.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank the three incredible, formidable women on the Front Bench—the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—who have not just learned that this is an issue but have been working and campaigning on it for their entire lives and come to this place to create change. Since 2022, there has been an 88% increase in online grooming, and 81% of those groomed are young women and girls. Does the Minister think that the social media companies are doing enough? Does she think that the police understand the nature of online grooming enough to be able to protect young people from it?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We often talk about historic cover-ups and failings, but we must also keep our eye on exactly where grooming is going on now and will take place in the future. She points out, completely rightly, that there is an ongoing grooming issue. Through the taskforce and work with various security departments, I have seen great examples of quite how focused police enforcement is on that. Do I think that social media companies could be doing more? The answer will always be yes.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister said in her opening answer that she is determined to get to the truth. She also listed people who could be caught up in cover-ups such as politicians, police and councillors. There are five potential inquiries and up to 50 child grooming gangs; how will it work if those councils do not have funding? More importantly, what if the councils do not want to take part? She said that she will do everything she possibly can. She could change the law—with backing from the Opposition—so that people are compelled to give evidence in such cases. Will she consider doing that?
Jess Phillips
As I said, I will consider the situation as it unfolds. What I would say is with the amount of money that the Government are allocating for local inquiries—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the shadow Home Secretary said, “It’s not enough,” but it is millions more than the zero that the previous Government allocated. When Oldham and Telford wrote to the previous Government to ask for help, answer came there none. I will follow the leads that are left for me.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Group-based sexual abuse is among the most heinous of crimes, and our priority must always be to listen to victims and survivors. I recently attended an event organised by West Yorkshire’s Mayor Tracy Brabin and the deputy Mayor and police and crime commissioner, Alison Lowe, where I had the opportunity to meet victims and survivors, as well as fantastic organisations such as Rape Crisis Bradford. I commend the Under-Secretary for her brave and tireless work to get justice for victims and survivors and to challenge those who have failed them, and for her commitment to implement the Jay inquiry in full. Can she assure me and my constituents that, as well as taking action to bring perpetrators to justice, she will support work to prevent such heinous crimes from happening again in the future?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely, and I say with the voice of the victims I have worked with over the years and have spoken to even today that the fundamental that they want is that children who come forward today—to their teacher, their social worker or whoever it is—do not suffer as they did. Keeping our eye on making sure that people are held accountable for the past will deliver justice only if we also look at the now.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister has outlined money for local inquiries. Is she able to comment on what resources will be made available for people who might come forward as a result of those local inquiries? Obviously, there is a backlog in provision of mental health support, talking therapies and all sorts of resources that people who have been through these horrific experiences may require, which are often provided by local authorities, health bodies and charities whose funding is under pressure. Will she elaborate on that and how she will make sure that victims are at its heart?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. I remember working in a Rape Crisis centre when the Jimmy Savile scandal was revealed and it was like being hit by a tsunami—the phone lines lit up. As I said before Easter in response to the Jay inquiry, making sure that we have robust mental health support for children who are victims is really important. I also announced that the Home Office would double the amount of money it provides for adult historic rape victims, in recognition that we may bring more people forward and therefore need to improve access to support.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work and commitment over many, many years. Will she confirm that the Government are committed to building trust with victims and survivors of child exploitation and abuse? My heart goes out to them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s focus on tackling violence against women and girls will turn the tide and shed a light, as sunlight is the best disinfectant?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. There are systemic problems with how women and girls are treated, and sometimes cover-ups are ignored. I am afraid to say that there is still a cultural sense of women feeling that they will not be believed if they come forward. We have to look fundamentally at all the systems across Government, which is what I and my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is leading on the violence against women and girls strategy, will do.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Government are blocking a national inquiry into the rape gangs and say instead that we should have five local inquiries, but we know there have been 50 places where these things have happened. In some of those places, such as Bradford, the council is blocking a local inquiry. We also know that local authorities often do not have the powers they need to requisition evidence and summon witnesses. Indeed, this whole story began when representatives of Oldham council wrote to the Minister after the election asking for the national powers that the council needed. Why did the Minister refuse to meet them?
Jess Phillips
I appreciate that that is where the whole story began for the hon. Gentleman, but it is not where the whole story began. Oldham council had written, I believe, twice before to the previous Government—
Jess Phillips
It had written to the previous Government, as had Telford. So, for me, this story started many years—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. To say it is simply untrue is to suggest something about the Minister. We have to get this right—
Neil O’Brien
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not correct that Oldham council had written to the last Government. An individual councillor had, but Oldham council had not. That is the whole point.
Mr Speaker
I am sure if there has been a mistake, the Minister will correct that.
Jess Phillips
I will check the record and make sure, but what I am absolutely certain of is the number of times that Telford council wrote and asked. I am aware that Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, or any of the places that have had an inquiry, were never given a single bean by the previous Government to do that work, and yet here we are and we will do it.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Communities across Heywood and Middleton North, however resilient, still bear the scars of these appalling and cowardly acts. I am grateful to the Minister for her continued engagement and resolve in addressing the cruel legacy of those crimes. What steps are being taken by her Department to learn from the healthcare practitioners, support workers and others who were active at the time of these crimes and initial inquiries to ensure that they can provide their insights and expertise to inform the commendable present-day efforts to secure justice for the women and girls?
Jess Phillips
I commend my hon. Friend’s work, and I know she is coming to see me with some of those healthcare workers. Sara Rowbotham—a woman I know well who works in sexual health services—was one of the whistleblowers in the Rochdale case. We absolutely need to ensure that, as we make progress, we listen to anybody who interacts with children and that people have space to come forward and speak up. The mandatory duty to report will go some way, but changing the culture to ensure that people are listened to and heard—in the health setting they know that better than in most—is definitely something that we will learn.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Despite multiple promises of inquiries from political parties across this House, it seems the only operational investigation will be the rape gang inquiry that I have privately launched. It has garnered cross-party support, and I implore MPs from any political persuasion to align with our cause. Will the Minister commit today to engaging in a co-operative manner with the investigation and make herself available to answer questions from our expert panel?
Jess Phillips
I delight in the hon. Gentleman’s interest, and what I would say to every single Member of this House is that I will work with absolutely anybody to make this better. I am more than happy to meet him and talk about any level of co-operation, because if people are genuinely here to try to stop the grooming gangs in this country, I am genuinely here to help.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I welcome that the Minister has kindly confirmed today that the Casey review will be published in May. Given that it will explain the next stages of the process, and while she obviously cannot preface the review, could she elaborate on whether she expects the review to include a framework for conducting the local inquiries?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely do not expect it to do that. Baroness Casey is seeking to do an audit of the problem profiles around the country, looking at exactly where the data does or does not exist and where there are failings. It was intended to be a rapid audit. The framework for good local inquiries is being worked on by a series of experts, including Tom Crowther and Alexis Jay. Details of the fund that local authorities can apply to will also be published by the end of May.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am sure the Minister shares my concern that, to date, no one has been convicted of covering up these horrendous crimes, including sexual abuse and gang rape. What is the plan to ensure that people are held to account, because it is quite clear, as the Minister said in her earlier remarks, that the cover-ups perpetuated the crimes, not just historically but potentially continuing to this very day?
Jess Phillips
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wish to see people who covered this up held accountable within the law and the frameworks that exist. If people have concerns about things and would like to bring specific cases to me, the police have the power to investigate those things. Had mandatory reporting laws existed sooner, we might have been in a better situation, but I completely agree that it is appalling that no one has been held to account.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work on this issue. I welcome the commitment to introduce mandatory reporting for suspected sexual abuse, which was recommended 11 years ago by the current Prime Minister when he was the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, and accepted by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. However, we had to go through four more Tory Prime Ministers and seven more Tory Home Secretaries before this Labour Government could implement it. I assure my hon. Friend that she has my full support on this matter, and I urge her to continue her good work.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Child sexual exploitation is a vile and despicable crime that cuts across all sections of our society. It is perpetrated by individuals with blackened souls who come from all races, creeds, religions and backgrounds. All law-abiding citizens want justice for the victims of those horrific acts. Does the Minister agree that our focus must be on supporting the victims of exploitation and stopping the perpetrators, but that that must be done in such a way that does not fan the flames of hate towards innocent groups of people who, like all law-abiding citizens, condemn such acts?
Jess Phillips
Of course I agree. I want the perpetrators to be held accountable. What I can say without any doubt is that, as local inquiries have told us, people have covered things up, whether asked to or not, for seemingly multicultural reasons. That cannot stand. That said, we will always follow the facts to ensure that we completely and utterly deal with it.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Home Secretary’s commissioning of Baroness Casey to conduct the national audit. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), can the Minister confirm whether the growing prevalence of online group-based sexual exploitation of children will form part of the report, and will she provide an update on the Home Office response to that growing crime?
Jess Phillips
Group-based grooming, which includes some terrible examples of British children being groomed from abroad and vice versa, is something that we are acutely aware of. Whether it forms part of what Baroness Casey finds, I will leave to her to say. I will say, however, that it absolutely forms part of the strategy of work that the Government have laid out for preventing child sexual abuse.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am concerned that some of the people involved in local authority inquiries could be the very same individuals who have covered up these heinous crimes for years. Why is the Minister so unwilling to seek justice for the victims of these child rape gangs through a national statutory inquiry?
Jess Phillips
I want to be clear that local inquiries must be independent. The chair of Telford inquiry was independent, and Professor Alexis Jay chaired the Rotherham inquiry. They are independent inquiries and they are not run by local authorities.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Last week I caught up with SafeStep, a remarkable charity in my constituency that supports victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation and abuse. We discussed the many ways in which trauma remains with victims and survivors, and how important accountability is for them as they rebuild their lives. My constituents who have suffered this appalling abuse need closure and change. I pay tribute to the Minister for her vital and persistent work to that end, including the establishment of the five local inquiries. Will she give further examples of what areas such as mine can do to ensure that the vile perpetrators are brought to justice?
Jess Phillips
The grooming gangs taskforce will work with local police force areas. The whole point is that it works operationally with local police forces to ensure best practice. That has led to 1,100 more arrests for group-based child sexual abuse since the taskforce was set up. There is a huge amount of resource in that centre. I encourage local areas and local police forces always to be working with the taskforce.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Surely there is something fundamentally flawed with the process of local inquiries if the option of holding the inquiry rests with the defaulting authority. Is there not equally something out of kilter with the Government’s approach to public inquiries when at this moment they are about to spend up to tens of millions of pounds on a public inquiry to meet the political demands of the Finucane family while denying a national inquiry to this national scandal of child rape gangs?
Jess Phillips
I will not answer the second point, which I think strays slightly from this urgent question, but what I will say is that I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman has read the 200-page document of the national inquiry into group-based child sexual abuse that already exists and has statutory powers. If he or anyone in the House has not read it, I encourage them to do that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her responses. As has often been said in this Chamber, child sexual abuse happens across all sectors of society, to girls and to boys, and there is no hierarchy of victims. As the Minister has already said, every single one of those young people comes into contact on a daily basis with professionals who have the power to change their lives for the better. What work is being done in advance of the mandatory reporting to work with the professional bodies who register those professionals to ensure that this can happen?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning boys and giving me the opportunity to say the following. I made a promise to one of the Oldham victims when I met her that I would always say that grooming gangs could happen to boys and girls, because it was her son who had lost his life, so I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to do that. There will be a delay in the preparation and rolling out of mandatory reporting exactly because we must make sure the guidance and the regulation that sits behind it and the training that will have to be put in place are right. We need that not so much for social workers and others who already have that sort of training, but there will also be sports coaches and volunteers, because huge numbers of institutions work with children, and getting this right is more important than rushing ahead with it.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My constituents are horrified by the Government’s failure to order a national inquiry into the child rape gang scandal. Does the Minister share the concerns raised by Sir Trevor Phillips that the decisions made by the Government appear to be obviously political and designed to avoid offending Muslim voters of Pakistani origin?
Jess Phillips
I do not agree with that. Politically, the easiest thing for me to have done in this situation would have been to capitulate, but I do not think it is the right thing to do. I genuinely believe that from my years of work and speaking to the victims and working in Telford with those victims about what changed afterwards. I would not do it—I would not stand here if I did not believe it. And as for the idea that I am trying to protect something of myself, this process has, I have to say, not been protecting of me and, frankly, that is an absolutely disgraceful thing to say.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
This is clearly a deeply distressing topic that affects the whole House, and I fully accept that the Minister is affected as much as anyone. That being said, it is not clear to me why we would not do absolutely everything within our power to get to the bottom of this, and that includes a full national inquiry with all the powers that come with it. Will the Minister please explain to me why we will not have that inquiry, and why she sees having one as capitulating?
Jess Phillips
What we have proposed is better because it is about acting now in areas where it is needed. We have already had a national inquiry, which took seven years and wrote a 200-page dossier on group-based sexual abuse—[Interruption.] There was a 200-page dossier specifically on that, and it took two years just to do that, and it made really good recommendations. I genuinely believe that the best thing for me to do is crack on with them.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Minister provide assurances from the Dispatch Box as to how the Government will compel councils—like Bradford, which has refused to participate in this inquiry or in a local inquiry—to take part? It may seem self-evident, but councils that are liable for child protection and that are found at fault are probably not going to want to participate in a local inquiry. That is why we are asking for a national inquiry. Will the Minister please set out what the Government are going to do to compel those councils to give evidence so that justice can be served for the victims?
Jess Phillips
I will wait for the review being undertaken by Baroness Casey and look at what it tells me, and then I will act on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her honest answers. She has spoken a number of times on this issue, and I thank her for her care and consideration of the matter. She will know that I always try to be respectful but my question is one that has to be asked. It remains clear that there is a public perception that the Government are drawing a line under actions that simply do not deserve to be forgotten. In order to learn the lessons of these dreadful actions, we need a full and open investigation. The Government must pacify the general public. We have an obligation to society, and even more so to the vulnerable. Will the Minister confirm the investigation that the public and Members of this House believe the scale of these issues warrants?
Jess Phillips
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire to always be respectful. I shall pay it back in kind and say that there is absolutely no way that the Government wish for the past to be forgotten or for a line to be drawn. That is absolutely the opposite of what I want. I want every single perpetrator rounded up and locked up; I want every single victim to feel supported; and I want everybody who covered these actions up to be held accountable for that—[Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from the shadow Home Secretary, who does not always show respect. There is this idea that people are held accountable by public inquiries, but that is not the case; nobody has gone to prison following the Hillsborough inquiry. Has anyone gone to prison as a result of the infected blood inquiry? No. Hon. Members should be careful about what they are promising can be achieved.
Points of Order
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, about which I have given Mr Speaker prior notice.
All of us in this House know that Mr Speaker has a deep personal commitment to the safety of Members of Parliament and their families. In that context, a video has emerged this weekend of a concert held in London some months ago, at which an Irish republican band, called Kneecap, told a cheering audience that,
“The only good Tory is a dead Tory”.
The band then implored the audience to,
“Kill your local MP”.
I am not a lawyer, but to my mind that is incitement to murder. Quite rightly, counter-terrorism police are now investigating. This is beyond despicable and the issue affects all parties. I say that as I look across the Chamber at the plaque for our fallen comrade, Sir David Amess, and at the one behind me for our fallen comrade, Jo Cox. They both died serving their constituents.
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask Mr Speaker three things? First, will the Home Secretary come to this House by no later than tomorrow and make a full statement on what the Government understand has happened here and exactly what they intend to do about it to protect all those in public life, not just MPs and their families? Secondly, will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who I see is in her place—I did notify her of my point of order—give a public explanation, ideally via a statement, of how it came to pass that this band were given some £14,000 of British taxpayers’ money in a grant?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
That was your Government!
Mr Francois
We do not normally heckle points of order, but, if the right hon. Lady is going to do that, I will say that our party’s leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), refused the grant. The band appealed, and this Government did not oppose the appeal. Those are the facts. Will the right hon. Lady please explain to us exactly how that happened and how we can get the money back? I did not want to make this issue partisan, but she interrupted me.
Thirdly, I understand that Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury, which, under the circumstances, would be unconscionable. As Mr Speaker is chairing a Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ safety, can we implore him through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to write to the organisers of Glastonbury festival and say that this House does not think it is appropriate that Kneecap should be allowed to appear, at least until the investigation is completed? I ask this on behalf of all MPs and all our families. I hope that that is not unreasonable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of some aspects of his point of order. As he knows, we do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House, but I understand that the police are investigating the incidents. I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his points on the record.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on how to put on the record my concerns and those of my constituents about worrying allegations in the weekend press about the awarding of contracts by Martin Dowey, the Conservative leader of South Ayrshire council?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his point on the record.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are significant concerns in Whitehill and Bordon in my constituency about changes to healthcare provision and meeting the needs of the rapidly growing local population. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 28 January about this issue, specifically about the future of the Chase community hospital. I have sent follow-up emails, but—three months to the day later—I have still received no response to that letter. The refusal of the Secretary of State to engage with my constituents on this matter is concerning. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on securing a ministerial response to the proposals.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the hon. Member’s comments.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At business questions last week, I asked a question related to JCB’s hydrogen diggers. Given that JCB was a sponsor of my constituency jobs fair, I should have referred the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests before asking that question. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, for notice of it and for putting his point on the record.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we in Northern Ireland are particularly concerned about the threats against Conservative MPs, and indeed against any MP in this House. We are also concerned about the funding of this particular group, Kneecap—whether they get funding from here, back home from some councils, or whatever—and about their ability to travel right across the world, such as to the United States of America. Will the relevant Minister make a statement on all those issues that concern the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and that concern me, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and all of us who represent Unionism in Northern Ireland?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, although it is not a point of order. He has put his comments on the record, and he may want to make a further point to the Table Office.
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 342 / Noes: 70 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Stuart Andrew has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today is a day of celebration for football fans in towns, villages and cities across England. Football would be nothing without the fans, and today we put them back at the heart of the game, where they belong. Football is genuinely our national game—it is the beating heart of our communities, a core part of what it means to be British, and one of our greatest exports. English football lights up the world through the premier league, and it lights up lives in every community through the magic that clubs bring, from the biggest in the world to our smallest grassroots clubs. However, while we celebrate the global success of the premier league, there is deep concern at every level of the footballing world about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game, which threatens its global success and the success of the whole game itself.
Since 1992, 60 clubs in the top four divisions have been plunged into administration, and behind that is the stark reality that fans have lived with for too long: that of being just one bad owner away from collapse. In my town of Wigan, we are no strangers to that; in recent years, we have fought two long, lonely battles to save our club. What I saw and learned over those long and difficult months appalled me, with rogue owners, asset-stripping administrators, and fans who were put last when they should have been first. In Reading, Fleetwood, Derby, Morecambe, Macclesfield, Chester and Bury are fans who have lived with a daily drumbeat of anxiety as leagues failed to come to agreement, owners came and went, and the systems set up to protect the fans failed one by one. We promised those fans that we would put an end to that. Today, we make good on that promise by bringing to this House a historic piece of legislation that has been far too long coming and putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this Bill and on strengthening the previous Government’s Bill, particularly when it comes to financial sustainability. Not only are football clubs the beating heart of our communities; they give a lot back to those communities. As a former Hammersmith councillor, she will know that no club is better at doing so than Queens Park Rangers, through the QPR in the Community Trust and its chief executive Andy Evans. They are fantastic, and do wonderful work in some of the poorest communities in the country.
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend, at least about the Bill—we perhaps differ on what is the best football club in the world. I also commend him on his long support for not just his football club, but his community, in which it plays such an important part.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Before the Secretary of State goes any further in her speech, will she take the opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, whose work in government laid the foundations for what the Secretary of State is talking about now? Since independence should be at the heart of everything we do, will she also say that it would be a pity if this Bill were mired in another story about Labour cronyism?
Lisa Nandy
I unreservedly pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch. Without her tenacity and determination, we would not have this Bill before the House in such good condition. We owe her a great deal, as does every football fan in the country. It is a source of pride to me that from the Bill’s inception—from the moment the fan-led review began—it has been a cross-party endeavour. I am grateful for the relationships we have been able to forge across the House to get us here.
Let me address head-on the question about the chair of the independent football regulator. David Kogan is by far one of the people in football most qualified to take on this role. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) likes to chunter, but he might want to listen for one moment, though I know it is not his normal mode of operation. Not only is David Kogan negotiating billions of pounds-worth of broadcasting rights, but he has advised the Premier League, the English Football League, UEFA, the National Football League and the Scottish premiership among others. He was also on the list that I inherited from the previous Government, who had headhunted him directly to ask him to apply for the job. Not only that, but top of the list was somebody who had donated over £50,000 to the Conservative party, so I will take no lectures from the Conservatives.
Lisa Nandy
No, I will not take the intervention, because I think a period of reflection and a bit of humility might be welcome from the Conservatives. They are embarrassing themselves. It is about time they listened and reflected on how this issue is perceived by millions of fans across the country.
We should be ashamed that it has taken so long to get to this Bill. It has been 14 years since parliamentarians first called for urgent change. It has been five years since Bury FC collapsed, sending shockwaves through English football. It has been four years since the European super league forced politicians to end years of violent indifference. It has been three years since the Crouch review called time on a system that has let fans down for two long, and it has been two years since the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) introduced the Bill to Parliament, calling it a landmark moment for fans.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing the Bill to the House. I hope the House will join me in congratulating Bury FC, the Mighty Shakers, for their historic first promotion since the club’s no-fan-fault eviction from the football league. We love a comeback in Bury, and know all too well of the devastating impact when football clubs forgo good ownership and standards. The Government are right to deliver on their promise of an independent football regulator; that promise was a consequence, in no small part, of the trauma we experienced. Will my right hon. Friend support my call for the new regulator’s home to be in Bury?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is a big fan of a comeback himself, as this House knows. I too declare an interest: my stepdad was a lifelong season ticket holder at Gigg Lane. I know that I would be speaking for him, were he still alive, in thanking my hon. Friend for the tireless work he did while the Conservative Government stood by and did absolutely nothing as his club was allowed to collapse. My hon. Friend worked tirelessly with fans in the community, and has been able to throw open the doors of Gigg Lane to fans again, so I am grateful to him for that.
The time for inaction is over. We have known for so long that for English football to prosper, it must be made sustainable. That is what the Bill does. We promised that, and we are doing it. We ask everybody who cares about the future of football to back our fans, our game, and the Bill.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome Bury FC’s revival, not least because Rochdale FC can now beat them in the local derby. On Saturday, I was at Spotland to see Rochdale clinch a play-off place for the national league, thanks to a 5-1 win over Hartlepool FC. Many people there knew it was a super achievement, precisely because a year ago we were threatened with financial collapse. There was a poignant moment at the game when we all remembered the death of Joe Thompson, whom we lost to cancer aged just 36. His work is being carried on by the local cancer charity Team Thompson. That epitomises everything that is great about our game; it is at the heart of the community, and is giving something back, through players like Joe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people like Joe are everything that is great about our English game? Does she also agree about the need to ensure that smaller clubs see a reverse of the inequity we see in the game nationally?
Lisa Nandy
May I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and add my voice to his in paying tribute to Joe? All our thoughts are with his family and the community.
That example shows exactly why this Bill matters. It also shows why, up until today, this has been a genuinely cross-party endeavour, backed by Members in all parts of the House. Against that backdrop, may I take this opportunity to say that this amendment is an absolute embarrassment? With the exception of stronger protections for fans, which the Conservatives supported, this Bill, which the right hon. Member for Daventry is opposing, is the Bill that he introduced. This is the system of light-touch regulation that incentivises football to get its own house in order that only a few weeks ago he was championing. In fact, not only is it light touch and pro-growth, but we got those measures into the Bill—something that the Conservatives failed to do when they were in government. He should be thanking us and welcoming the strengthened provision in the Bill.
This Bill takes a proportionate approach that rejects one-size-fits-all, so that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. The right hon. Member should know that because he presented the Bill to this House, and only a few weeks ago he was busy endorsing it. This is the Bill that every single Conservative Member supported at the election in their manifesto. Promises made, promises broken—we simply cannot trust a single word they say.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about a light touch and proportionality. The general secretary of UEFA wrote to her about the potential consequences of her proposals before Christmas. That letter is relevant to the decisions we have to make today, so will she publish a copy for the House before we vote this evening?
Lisa Nandy
They just cannot stop embarrassing themselves. Seriously, the hon. Member was the Whip on the Bill Committee. He knows full well that UEFA has confirmed in writing to me, as the Football Association confirmed directly to Members of both Houses, that the Bill before the House does not breach UEFA statutes. I will say to him gently, as I said to Opposition Members—[Interruption]—the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness might like to learn something—that it is one thing to criticise the Government for something they disagree with; it is another to criticise them for doing exactly the same thing that they did in government.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) will know that the last Government—in which the shadow Secretary of State was the Minister responsible for the Bill—refused to publish any private correspondence, be it from UEFA or otherwise, because they said, rightly, that it remained confidential and was private. However, we have been happy to disclose to the House that there is no problem with the Bill presented as far as UEFA is concerned. I mean, honestly—
Lisa Nandy
No, the hon. Gentleman is embarrassing himself. Sit down, have a period of humility, and learn what is in this Bill.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
We will hear a number of speeches today, and we have a number of football fans in the Chamber, representing many football clubs across many leagues, so I expect that many of us will not be surprised to hear the chant: “Well, it’s all gone quiet over there!” Is the Secretary of State, like me, surprised at the apparent silence from the Opposition Benches, and at Opposition Members’ seeming reluctance to put fans at the heart of our game?
Lisa Nandy
Even though we are talking about the Conservatives, I am absolutely gobsmacked. We are talking about millions of football fans around the country. Certainly in recent years, I have never not been of the opinion that Conservative Members do not think about anyone but themselves, but even on that test, I would have thought that they would see that it was in the interests of the Conservative party to back something that means so much to millions of people in every town, village and city across this country.
Lisa Nandy
I will make some progress, but I will bring the hon. Member in when I can.
Let me remind the right hon. Member for Daventry what he used to think about the Bill. He used to say that a regulator was “substantial but necessary”; that not having one would be “catastrophic”; and that
“Without fans, football clubs are nothing. We would all do well to remember that as we work towards reform to secure a brighter future for football.”
The Conservatives have now worked themselves so far towards reform that they are virtually indistinguishable from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I can only think that he is writing their policy on football.
But seriously, how can the right hon. Member for Daventry look football fans in Hartlepool, Bolton, Portsmouth, Reading, Bury and Luton in the eye and defend this amendment, after making them a promise just two years ago, and again at the general election? [Interruption.] I have the full list. He might as well have it, because he is the only person in this room who does not seem to remember what he has said. I am left wondering whether he did not understand a word of his own Bill, which he introduced to this place just a few years ago and championed at the general election, or whether the sad truth is that the public cannot trust a single word that his party says.
Let me try to help the shadow Minister on what the Bill actually does. First, it introduces a licensing system to require clubs to have a sensible business plan that they stick to. That will include a clear financial plan that properly assesses risk. That is measured and proportionate, and it places requirements on clubs that reflect their circumstances. Let me address the concern that he has just discovered that he has. The Bill will take into account factors such as league, club size and financial health. That will ensure that the regulation is light-touch. We have cemented the proportionate approach that we inherited from him by adding two measures: a financial growth duty, so that the regulator will need to consider the financial growth of English football as part of its secondary duties; and a specific—[Interruption.] He cannot have it both ways. He cannot take credit for this legislation and then try to vote it down. Honestly, I have seen a lot from the Conservatives. I have seen people taking three different positions on two different options in front of them, but what I have not seen for a long time is a shadow Minister who has two different positions on his own view. It is just absurd.
We have also included a regulatory principle in the Bill to clarify that the regulatory regime is light-touch. That will provide clarity and certainty, and prevent any unintended consequences from deterring good owners from investing in our clubs. The Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and I have worked closely with clubs at every level to produce legislation that is clearer for prospective owners than the existing system, and we are confident that this stable environment will drive more investors with a long-term prudent approach into the game.
Dr Luke Evans
One of the sticking points in the Bill, and one of the things that has changed, is the approach to parachute payments. One of the Opposition’s concerns is that the Bill will deter investment. We are talking about literally the best league in the world. People from across the world invest with security because of those payments. If the Government take them away, there is a worry that it will deter investment in other leagues. That is exactly what the German league, the French league and the Spanish league are looking for. Will she rectify the issue by putting a provision about those payments in the Bill?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman raises a decent point, and I will address it head-on. We have no plans to abolish parachute payments, and there is no measure in the Bill that allows us to do so. We also do not take a view on parachute payments; it is for football to determine its view. However, it would be nonsense to exclude parachute payments from the state of the game report, given that this Bill is about the financial sustainability of the whole game. The regulator must be able to take that into account and to use it to inform discussions with clubs in every league across the footballing world. That is the view that we took, but it is also far closer to the spirit, intention and recommendations of Dame Tracey Crouch’s review of football, which was led and informed by thousands of fans across the country. It is the right thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lisa Nandy
I will make some progress, as many Members want to speak. It shows how important this issue is to this House.
Some Members have raised concerns about competition, so let me be crystal clear. Football is an economic powerhouse. The Premier League and its clubs contributed more than £4.2 billion in tax in 2021, supporting more than 90,000 jobs. England leads the world when it comes to football, and the English pyramid is based on competition. That is why the regulator will not intervene in competition matters. Its scope is tightly defined, and I can say to the House with confidence that it will not risk contravening any international statutes. Members will have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire about the view of UEFA, and they will have heard what the FA has confirmed directly to Members of both Houses. In fact, we are so committed to this principle, to protect England’s ability to compete in international matches, that we removed a damaging clause we inherited from the previous Government. It would have required the regulator to
“have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government”
when approving takeovers. The system will be better and far more independent as a result.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Given the enormous amount of money that sits with the Premier League, does the Secretary of State share my feeling that it and the FA in general do not do justice by the families of former footballers who suffer from neurodegenerative conditions? Footballers are four or five times more likely to have such conditions than the rest of the population, and those organisations are meant to help families with the care costs of such former professionals, but they do not do so. Will the Secretary of State meet Football Families for Justice so that we can put something in the Bill that will force the wealthy people in football to support those who suffer?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Friend for his advocacy. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who has done incredible work in this regard. I am due to meet some of the families shortly.
I will try to make some progress, because many Members want to speak and raise issues about their own clubs and communities. Let me turn to the subject of financial distributions. Our strong preference is for football to be able to reach its own agreement on broadcast revenue distribution, but regrettably, as the House will know, no agreement has been reached since the last deal was struck in 2019. That is why we agree with Dame Tracey Crouch that clubs must have a safeguard in these circumstances, and the Bill proposes a backstop power. It was explicitly designed to incentivise industry to come to its own agreement, and restores the right of the regulator to consider all elements of club finances, including parachute payments. By definition, a backstop is a measure of last resort, and we have strengthened the measures in the Bill to ensure that the regulator will have the power to intervene only as a last resort. We have also made it clear that the regulator will need to publish its “state of the game” report before the backstop can be triggered, so that all parties have a clear and common understanding of the problems that should be addressed before engaging in mediation.
I recognise that the exact process of how the backstop should work has been a matter of serious and considered debate in the other place, with thoughtful suggestions made by Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and others. We are confident that we have proposed an effective mechanism, but we appreciate the constructive and thoughtful debate on this matter. Before the Committee stage, we will consider whether there are sensible ways in which to improve the process and ensure that we present the best possible option to the House.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I return the Secretary of State to the Conservatives’ position on parachute payments? I welcome the fact that the Government have not ruled out taking them into account when the regulator does his work. Surely the purpose of the “state of the game” report is to look at the health of the football pyramid as a whole, but before that report is published, the Opposition want to rule out allowing the regulator to take account of parachute payments. As 80% of the help that the Premier League gives the rest of the league is spent on parachute payments, surely that is a nonsense and at least should be considered for the future.
Lisa Nandy
I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said.
Let me deal with the subject of owners’ and directors’ tests. Football clubs are the pride of our towns and cities. New owners bring important investment, but they are also the guardians, the custodians, of clubs that have stood at the centre of our communities and our lives for more than 100 years. Fans grow up attending matches with parents and grandparents; later, they take their own children and grandchildren. These clubs are handed on from one generation to the next. They are institutions that—as the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) once wrote—help to shape and define us as we help to shape and define them, and they are too important to be used as playthings by people who have no stake or care for the community that owns them.
That is why the Bill introduces a fitness test for owners and directors, a source of wealth test for owners, and a requirement for adequate financial plans and resources, also for owners only. Prospective owners and directors will have to pass those tests before buying or joining a club. Incumbents will not automatically be tested, but the power exists, if there is concern about their suitability, to remove them if they are found unsuitable. This approach reduces the regulatory burden, and is targeted proportionately where there is a risk of harm. It will bring peace of mind to clubs, their staff and their fans, who deserve nothing less.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I suspect that many in this Chamber will be surprised to hear that when I first supported Manchester United, “United will survive” was on the front of the match programme: the club were bankrupt, because the young men who were killed in the Munich air disaster were not insured, and it took a lot of effort to move on. My right hon. Friend is talking about directors and “right and proper” people. I think I speak for every Manchester United fan when I say that if the Bill does not enable the fans to get rid of the Glazers, who are sucking money out of Manchester United to support shopping centres in Florida, it is defective.
Lisa Nandy
We have purposefully set a high bar for incumbents, but it is right that the power exists.
Finally, I turn to the most important people: the fans. I said at the outset that the Bill maintains a tightly defined scope focused on financial sustainability and safeguarding heritage, and it will continue to take a light-touch, targeted and proportionate approach, but it is a new season and there is a new manager. Like all good managers, I could not resist making some well-timed substitutions to improve our odds of delivering on our manifesto commitment to make this country the best place in the world to be a football fan, and to deliver a Bill that is match fit. Too many fans have seen their teams’ owners change club badges and colours without any fan input, or have seen their club sell its stadium and up sticks until it is barely recognisable. Too many fans have watched as their clubs have tried to join closed-shop breakaway leagues against their wishes, and too many have seen their club struggle or even collapse under the weight of mismanagement and poor ownership.
Lisa Nandy
Nobody knows that better than my right hon. Friend, to whom I will happily give way.
Anneliese Dodds
My right hon. Friend has been passionate about the beautiful game for many years, and I am delighted that she is ensuring the Bill will be passed and make a difference for fans. One huge problem for fans has been their club getting trapped with an unsuitable, unsustainable and extremely expensive stadium because of goings-on at the club. We have that with Oxford United now. Does she agree that the Bill will help to stop that kind of situation, and that Oxford United must be allowed to move to the Triangle as soon as possible?
Lisa Nandy
I am sure my right hon. Friend will continue to fight for Oxford United and all their fans. We have explicitly included provisions in the Bill to ensure that there are protections for fans around club relocation and the sale of stadiums. I know from my own experience at Wigan Athletic that one of the only reasons we still have a club is that the council had a covenant on the land, which prevented the stadium from being sold when we were in administration.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for making a fantastic speech. We should also commend the good owners of football clubs, such as Frank Rothwell and his family, who have made such a difference to Oldham Athletic. He has not just ploughed money into the club, but raised millions of pounds for Alzheimer’s research. May I also associate myself with the comments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about Football Families for Justice’s efforts to get an independent and comprehensive strategy on dementia for footballers, who are four to five times more likely to suffer from dementia?
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for putting this issue on the record, but for raising it with me privately on a number of occasions—I know how committed she is. May I associate myself with her words about good football club owners? We firmly believe that this Bill will provide the clarity and certainty that allows good owners to invest without being outbid or having to compete with people who mean our clubs ill. I, too, have an extremely good owner at Wigan Athletic. We are fortunate to have him, and we know how important such owners are.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
During covid, non-league clubs took DCMS sport survival loans, but their repayment now threatens the viability of some. Will the Secretary of State assure fans that she will do all she can to assist them? As my local club, King’s Lynn Town, are in active discussions with Sport England about their loan, will she or the Sports Minister agree to meet me to discuss that?
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which affects many clubs around the country. The Department continues to engage regularly with fans and sporting governing bodies that are facing difficulties—not just in football, but across the board. We are working constructively to help support them, and I would be delighted to provide him with a further update on the individual case that he mentions.
We are determined to meet our commitments and promises to fans. We have improved the Bill explicitly to require clubs to provide effective engagement with their supporters, and to consult fans on changes to ticket prices and on any proposals to relocate their home ground.
Lisa Nandy
If the hon. Gentleman forgives me, I will make some progress. I think over 50 Members want to speak in this debate, and I want to give them an opportunity to contribute.
We are determined to ensure, through this Bill, that those protections are in place. Clubs will be required to establish that a majority of fans are supportive of changes to club emblems and home shirt colours, and obtain FA approval of any change to a club’s name. For the first time ever, this will set a minimum standard of fan engagement in law. It will introduce financial regulation giving the regulator the power to oversee financial plans and step in where it has concerns. Many clubs are already delivering with and for their fans, but this should be a right of all fans, not just some. This Labour Government are delivering strong and sensible measures that respect the contribution of working people to this country, and our message is clear: if they value it, we will protect it, by putting fans at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State has been most generous in giving way. It is reported that Manchester United, Liverpool and others have advertised posts that exclude applications by white men. Will she say on the Floor of the House today that any such policy is illegal in that it infringes the Equality Act 2010, and will she give a clear message that any such policy must be reversed?
Lisa Nandy
I am not aware of that—genuinely, this is the first I have heard of it—but I am happy to look into it and come back to the right hon. Member.
Lisa Nandy
I am going to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see, by your nodding your assent, that you would like to do so.
Real change or lasting change never comes from the Government alone; it takes a nation. I thank the fans, the clubs and the leagues, including the English Football League, the Premier League and the National League, for their extensive and constructive engagement; the FA, UEFA and FIFA for their continued support of the Bill; the Football Supporters’ Association, the Professional Footballers’ Association, Kick It Out and clubs across the pyramid for their invaluable perspective and support; and noble Lords for their close scrutiny. I also thank the civil servants in my Department who have worked tirelessly for many years, across two different Governments of different political persuasions, to get us to this point. Most of all, I thank one woman, without whose passion for football and its fans, relentless drive and determination to make good on this long-held promise, we would never have reached this moment—Dame Tracey Crouch.
This effort has united clubs across every league, fans and governing bodies; towns, villages and cities across our country; and, until today, even political parties, in our determination to fulfil our promise to fans. For the Conservatives, this—the amendment—is genuinely a shameful moment, pitting themselves against fans, clubs and the national game. However, for football and its fans, this is a new dawn. Hard-fought-for and long-awaited, it will give our national game and our much-loved clubs the most promising future, and put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Football Governance Bill [Lords], because, notwithstanding the need for financial sustainability in the English football league pyramid, the Regulator proposed to be established by the Bill will damage the independence of English football, particularly given the Government’s proposed choice for the Chair and because the Bill will increase the regulatory burden and costs on all English football clubs—particularly lower league clubs—leading to increased ticket prices for fans and will in turn reduce the international competitiveness of, and increase the risks to, English football.”
Let me begin by offering my congratulations to Liverpool FC on winning the premiership yesterday and to those who have been promoted, and I feel I especially need to mention two of my former homes—namely, Leeds and Wrexham.
I think I speak for all Members when I say that football is a defining part of our national identity. With clubs bringing fans and communities together week in and week out, football has been a great unifier since its inception. It was a football match that famously brokered a momentary truce on the western front on Christmas day in 1914. Since the inaugural FIFA world cup in 1930, football has brought nations together around one central purpose—the love of a game—in friendly competition. Football is a multibillion-pound industry with a truly global footprint, and I know that Members across this House want to secure its future growth.
The collapse of clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, the devastating impact of the pandemic and the failed attempt by some English clubs to join a breakaway European super league have all highlighted that the future of the clubs we love and of the beautiful game is far from guaranteed. For this reason, we introduced the original Football Governance Bill, aimed at securing the future of football clubs for the benefit of both communities and fans. This proposed legislation, as we have heard, followed the fan-led review that was brilliantly chaired by our former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch, and extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and experts. I, too, want to pay tribute to Dame Tracey, and to all those who participated in the process and contributed to shaping our Bill.
However, it is because of the importance of football, both to our national identity and economy, that we have had to take a decision regarding our stance on this particular legislation. When circumstances change, so too will our approach—and things have certainly changed. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, but after careful consideration of our responsibility to the game, the clubs at its core and the millions of fans who cherish it, we have reached the conclusion that we must vote against Labour’s version of the Football Governance Bill.
The Bill we are considering today is not the same as the one that we originally envisaged. It has been fundamentally altered to a point where it threatens to do far more harm than good. The Secretary of State says in one breath that it is same Bill, and in the next breath that she has changed it all, which is almost like saying that Manchester United and Manchester City are the same. The Government’s decision to appoint a Labour donor as chair of the independent regulator raises serious concerns about political interference in football governance.
Stuart Andrew
First and foremost, and I will come on to this, is the fact that the regulator is no longer independent.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making the key point. With the Secretary of State’s choice of chair, it is no longer an independent regulator. If a Conservative party donor was being presented by a Conservative Secretary of State, does my right hon. Friend think that the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), as shadow Secretary of State, would support that stance? Is it not one rule for her and one rule for everyone else?
Stuart Andrew
I will absolutely come on to that point. When the regulator is being set up and you look for people, you cast the net wide. Of course you do. You want to know who is interested and you want the best candidates. But I tell you something: if any donor of any political party had been put forward and recommended to me, I would have said no. That is the difference. The right hon. Lady said yes to a Labour crony. I would have said no.
I confess that when preparing and drafting our version of the Bill, I went through a whole host of conflicts in my mind—what to include, what not to include—but after months and months of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, from fans and fan groups, the FA, the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, UEFA, FIFA and many, many roundtables with MPs from across the political divide, the Bill that we presented was, I believe, measured and proportionate, tightly scoped to ensure the financial stability of football clubs, the sustainability of the leagues and fans given a say over their clubs’ heritage. Two things stood out most to me throughout all my engagement: first, the consistent call for it not to be overburdensome and costly, particularly for lower clubs; secondly, that it must be independent, like all sports.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the new chairman of the Labour football regulator gave £5,000 to the hon. Gentleman who has just chortled from his seat, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), and another £70,000 to other Labour Members, and will be getting a return of £130,000 per year for a three-day week—half a million pounds of personal return on that £75,000 investment over this Parliament. If the Secretary of State was sitting on the Opposition Benches, she would be able to smell the hypocrisy and the stink of corruption. That is why we cannot accept this appointment: it does not ensure the independence that this position certainly requires.
Stuart Andrew
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. This is not—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Labour Members are saying, “You shortlisted them.” Let me assure this House: I most certainly did not shortlist this gentleman. Even if he was presented to me, there is no way I would have appointed him, for precisely the reasons my right hon. Friend has set out.
Labour’s expanded remit for the IFR significantly increases the regulatory burden on clubs. Make no mistake: it will be the smallest clubs—the beating hearts of their communities—that will be hit the hardest. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the cost of compliance could reach a staggering £47.3 million, and make no mistake: that will push ticket prices up.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
At the FSAs’ 2023 annual general meeting, the shadow Minister said:
“Despite the phenomenal success of football at home and abroad, we have seen too many examples of the devastating impact the failure of a beloved club can have on a local community.”
My local club in Gateshead was nearly wound up in 2019. Is he really content to maintain the grotesque status quo, which allows too many of us to lose our clubs, to score political points on this matter?
Stuart Andrew
I say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is actually going to be adding cost to those clubs. I have just mentioned the £47.3 million, but with the football regulator’s remit now considerably expanded, operational costs could rise to £150 million, which clubs like his will have to fund through the levy.
Baroness Brady, someone with deep knowledge of the football industry as vice-chairman—[Laughter.] Labour Members mock, but the Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), had to retract similar comments, which she did graciously, I have to say. Baroness Brady has raised serious and well-founded concerns about these costs and the disproportionate impact they will have on clubs, as all this comes against the backdrop of Labour’s wider economic mismanagement, which is already undermining the financial stability of our football clubs. Labour’s new national insurance job tax will hit clubs’ finances hard, with the Premier League saying it will amount to £50 million a year and £250 million over the life of this Parliament, compounding the pressures of increased regulation.
At the same time, football stadiums are facing higher business rates under Labour’s watch. To give a few examples, Wembley stadium is set to pay £829,000 more, while the Etihad stadium will see a rise of £564,000. These are not abstract figures; these are real costs that will trickle down to fans through higher ticket prices, reduced investment on or off the pitch, or even clubs having to close.
Against this backdrop, we now have very real concerns about the impact of these changes on smaller clubs. Indeed, Mark Ives, the former general manager of the National League, highlighted the financial strain that increased regulation will place on lower league clubs, calling it, quite rightly, “a huge concern.”
However, and most egregiously of all, the Government have fatally undermined the IFR’s independence. The fan-led review into football governance was unequivocal that a credible regulator must be fully independent, free from political influence, and certainly free from Government interference. It stated clearly:
“Independence means operations and decision making are independent from the government”.
That is a critical element for me personally. That point was made over and over again in almost every discussion I had, and quite right too.
Graham Stuart
This is not a Labour-leaning businessperson who is generally independent but decided to support Labour; this is someone who was a director of LabourList until just a few weeks ago. This is someone who is absolutely embedded in the Labour establishment, who funded Labour Members including the Chancellor, now being given this half-a-million-pound boondoggle for the next four or five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regulator clearly is not independent and that Labour needs to think again?
Stuart Andrew
It feels like my right hon. Friend has already read my speech, because those are the points that I want to make. When I had those extensive meetings, that question of independence was absolutely raised time and again by fans who were worried that they did not want party politics or Government interference in the game they love, by clubs and leagues, who time and again wanted reassurances that a regulator would be truly independent, and by UEFA and FIFA in particular, who have strong statutes about political and Government interference in football, as indeed most international sports governing bodies do. I pledged and promised to all of them that independence meant just that. I fully understood the possible consequences if the regulator were seen as anything other than independent. That is why independence matters, and why I always held it dear.
Dr Luke Evans
There are not only political concerns about independence but concerns from the EFL about the regulator’s previous links with the Premier League. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when trying to make a digital decision when, for example, we come to the backstop and choosing one side over the other—the EFL or the Premier League—which is in effect what the legislation does, there would be a conflict of interest if the regulator had worked for the Premier League?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend makes really important points. This appointment is really important to the future of the regulator. What have the Labour Government done? They have announced the appointment of David Kogan, a key Labour donor and political insider, to lead the football regulator. It is deeply troubling—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry, but I feel really strongly on this.
Let me be clear: Mr Kogan is no impartial figure. He is a long-standing member of Labour’s inner circle, having donated thousands of pounds to the party and having spent five years on the board of LabourList, the party’s propaganda outlet, resigning only this month, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. This appointment is not about qualifications or about merit; it is about rewarding a political ally. At the same time, Labour have totally thrown out any credible claims that the regulator is independent and free from political interference. Football fans deserve better, the British public deserve better, and our national game deserves protection from political meddling.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman must have been upset when the previous Government appointed Richard Sharp as chairman of the BBC as he was not only a former donor to the Conservative party, but a member of a think-tank. Did he express similar views to his Government back then when they made that appointment?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the fact that Labour Members went mad about that, but now they are doing so because this is one of theirs.
Media outlets are now reporting that even some EFL clubs are deeply worried about this political appointment. If they are worried, we should be worried and we should listen. Members will recall that this is not the first time that alarm bells have been sounded about political interference in football governance. Well before this deeply questionable appointment, UEFA raised serious concerns that England risked exclusion from the European championship due to concerns that a Government-backed football regulator could lead to unacceptable political interference. We understand that in a letter from UEFA, which is still being withheld from Members by this Government, the general secretary said:
“One particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition.”
And that was written before the Government sought to install a Labour crony at the helm of the football regulator.
We began this debate by recognising football for what it truly is: not just a sport but a pillar of our national identity; something that unites communities, carries our shared history and inspires future generations. It is because we care so deeply about this game and everything it represents that we cannot, in good conscience, support a Bill that risks compromising its very foundations and its independence.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State says that he cares deeply about football and the communities that it unites. My patch is just down the road from Reading, where we have seen truly horrific scenes as a bad owner has ripped the heart out of the football club and driven it almost to the point of extinction. Reading fans back this Bill, and they do so because they know that the Bill will make it far harder for what has happened to Reading ever to happen again. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman: why will he not back this Bill?
Stuart Andrew
I have just been explaining why: it is because this Government have made an independent regulator a party political regulator. I am ashamed that they have done this.
I ask the Minister to answer this question in her summing up: does she not appreciate that the appointment of David Kogan drives a coach and horses through the independence of the football regulator? Does she not understand that the appointment of Mr Kogan only exacerbates the risk that the introduction of the regulator could lead to England being excluded from European competitions? Will she publish all correspondence received from UEFA so that Members and fans can be better informed of that risk? Given that there have been so many donations to Members of Parliament, including the £5,000 that was given to the Chancellor, will she publish all correspondence regarding the IFR from No. 10 and No. 11? Will she also explain how smaller clubs will be expected to cope with the increased regulatory burden she has brought in?
It truly pains me to see what this Government have done regarding this issue, playing fast and loose with the independence of the regulator. They have turned this into a Labour Government regulator, increasing burdens on clubs when the Treasury is already hammering them with its taxes. It is beyond disappointing and I am genuinely furious—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but when I met those stakeholders, I made it really clear that independence was sacrosanct. The Government have destroyed that in one appointment. They have put their crony before clubs and their friends before fans. They have put their donations ahead of football. That is why we have no confidence in this Government’s ability to bring in a truly independent football regulator that will not raise more questions than it solves.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me early, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran the London marathon yesterday and do not think I could bob up and down all evening.
I respect the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and count him as a friend, but his speech was hysterical at points. He claimed again that UEFA will ban English teams from competition as a result of perceived Government interference—he knows that is wrong. The fact is that UEFA would have made a statement by now, and it has not done so. It did not oppose mirrored legislation in Spain or Italy. It is not going to happen; it is not going to ban English clubs from European competitions. It is a fallacy to say that, and I am embarrassed that he has been forced to come here by his party leader and move an amendment against a Bill introduced and endorsed by the Conservatives. It means the Conservatives lose credibility and we cannot bring in a Bill that we can all unite behind, as we did in the previous Parliament.
I must declare an interest as the author of that great book, “Don Revie: The Biography”. I discovered in the research for that book how much football has come on. In the days when Don Revie won the league championship in 1969 and 1974—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) nodding away—and the FA cup in 1972, football was not a place to take families. People did not want to be in town on a Saturday morning, because fans were rampaging through cities and towns throughout our country. People did not want to go to stadiums, which were often crumbling. There was hooliganism, violence, vandalism and countless examples of clubs being banned.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Daventry saying—sorry, I am not singling him out—that he believes passionately in football. It is pity that the Conservative Government of the 1980s did not believe that. They believed that the solution to hooliganism was to pen in our fans with electrified fences, and we have seen the tragic results of that. That is what Mrs Thatcher believed, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, I would ask him to read Dominic Sandbrook on what Margaret Thatcher believed about football. She did not like the game, like many other people on the Opposition side.
Football turned the corner only in the 1990s, and it is ironic that the Premier League is endorsing the Bill’s prevention of breakaway league forming in the future given that it is itself a breakaway league, it having broken away from the EFL in 1992. It is a British success story. The premier league has become the most watched game across the world, with 1.5 billion fans in 189 countries. The global success story begins at home: it generates £8 billion annually in UK gross value added, contributes £4 billion in tax and supports almost 100,000 jobs. This is a success story.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his wise words and for setting the scene so well. Does he share my concern that the premier league is very much a rich man’s world? The tickets for Arsenal, for instance, cost £1,000 per person per season. I declare an interest as a Leicester City man. Last season, our three clubs went up; now they go down. Does he share my concern that the gap between the premier league and the championship and the gap between the championship and the first and second divisions are becoming too great? Does he feel that it is time for the premier league to share some of its wealth with the rest of us?
Chris Evans
Yes, the premier league has a responsibility to share its wealth. It is interesting that this is the second year running that the promoted clubs have gone straight back down, and the gap between West Ham and Ipswich is huge. There is no way that they were going to breach that with four games left in the season. There are issues we have to look at on that.
Turning to the Bill, even though I broadly support it, that does not mean that I do not have reservations, and I hope the Minister will bring some comfort on those. The new legislation includes a licensing regime requiring clubs to satisfy the independent football regulator that they have sound corporate and financial governance in place that provides financial stability. Licensing concerns me. The fact is that the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal—whoever we want to name in that traditional top six bracket—will have people in place who can bring about a licensing regime and they will be able to comply with it. That is not the case for a smaller club, and it could put unnecessary burdens on them. That therefore needs to be addressed in the Bill, and I hope the Government will bring that about.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Leeds United supporter. He talks about the top six. Is it not true that Leeds United could have found itself in the top six of the English premier division had it not been for bad ownership and bad financial decisions, and that is what this Bill seeks to deal with?
Chris Evans
Of course, Peter Ridsdale’s name is blackened in Leeds. It is also blackened in Arsenal, Barnsley and wherever he has been. Leeds is an important point. We talk about the glory days of Don Revie. We forget about the early 2000s, when we were overspending on certain players. There were massive wages where players had been sold and wages were still being paid. It was ultimately trying to bring success to the club, but it failed, and when it started failing there were no safeguards in place, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe and hope—the eternal optimist—that we both will be celebrating a top-four finish next season and will be back in the champions league for the first time since the 2000s.
The huge issue I have with this Bill, though—again, this is a framework piece of legislation—is that when the independent football regulator comes about, they will have to set out their rules and guidance. That will likely run to hundreds of pages and will take time, so the Government must make regulations specify which leagues will follow the legislation initially. They also need to bring about a timetable to ensure that when that framework legislation is written out, it is done in a way that does not affect clubs’ futures. The fact is that a lot of clubs with small budgets have to plan for the future, so I hope that a strict timetable is put in place for governance and other issues that clubs must meet.
I turn to my concerns about the Bill. I have already talked about UEFA and the scaremongering from the Conservatives about English clubs somehow being banned from Europe, and I hope I have addressed that. The second concern is that the owners’ test might require some current owners to sell their clubs, although again that is scaremongering from the Conservatives. That is unlikely, though there is a possibility of some impact on the ownership of clubs in the next few years. The new test in the Bill develops the tests already applied by the Premier League and the EFL to date, and the most significant changes are likely to emerge in the long term as we see more in the guidance and overall approach from the IFR to how it applies to the test in practice.
It is also important to bear in mind that the Bill is focused on the application of the test to new owners purchasing a club, rather than owners already in place, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on earlier. However, it is possible that some current owners may find themselves subject to the IFR applying the test if new information raising concerns about their suitability comes to light in future. I hope that amendments will be made in Committee to address that.
I broadly support the Bill, but I want to return to something that needs to be addressed, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Throughout writing the Don Revie book, I was heavily involved with the players and met Johnny Giles, who is probably the greatest midfielder to come out of Ireland—sorry, Roy Keane. I met his son Michael and his cousin John Stiles, who is the son of Nobby Stiles, who was a 1966 World cup winner. Unfortunately, Nobby—like so many other professionals and many of that World cup winning side—succumbed to dementia and Alzheimer’s. They formed the Football Families for Justice, a voluntary organisation that campaigns on behalf of ex-professional footballers who have died because of neurodegenerative diseases incurred in the course of their work.
Footballers suffer neurodegenerative diseases at four to five times the national average. It is something that needs to be investigated. Alzheimer’s and CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—which is usually suffered by boxers from blows to the head, is five times the national average for footballers. Motor neurone disease, which claimed the life of my hero Don Revie, is four times the national average, and Parkinson’s is twice the national average. That needs to be investigated.
This is the goal of the FFJ:
“We call on the leaders of the football industry to act with urgency in allocating a small proportion of their massive wealth to address the tragedy of dementia and other neuro-degenerative diseases suffered by so many ex-professionals”
and
“to meet the needs of these victims with respect and kindness through best-in-class support, including care home costs and financial assistance for their widows, as required.”
When the football regulator comes about, I hope that research into medical conditions is part of its remit, to support people who have given so many others so much pleasure over the years.
I also hope that the football regulator will investigate not just the leagues but the Professional Footballers’ Association and the way it is run as a trade union. There are serious concerns about the pay of the chief executive and the way in which that so-called union is being run. I hope that that will be part of the football regulator’s remit.
I hope that there is something we can do to ensure that the tragedies suffered by Nobby Stiles, Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton—legends whose names trip off the tongue—are not suffered by their successors, such as Harry Kane.
As I said, in the main, I support the Bill. It is a good Bill. I am disappointed that Conservative Members have decided to take a crazy decision, even though the Bill is almost identical to theirs. I believe that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Daventry, supports the Bill in his heart, but that other forces—mainly the leader of the Conservative party—have probably changed his mind somewhat.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Football is irrevocably intertwined into our national story. It is about belonging, about the communities we live in and about what we do in our spare time, and it is what we daydream about when we are supposed to be working—I feel that on a very personal level every day.
Today I speak primarily not as a politician or a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but as a football fan. I have been to more than 50 football league grounds, and to a fair few non-league grounds, too—Brimscombe and Thrupp FC in the Stroud constituency is well worth the attention of the non-league ground-hoppers out there. I have followed England home and away. These days, I mostly watch my local team Cheltenham Town, who have enjoyed a thoroughly mid-table season, but I grew up watching Southampton, and when time allows, I still watch them now—through the gaps between my fingers at the moment.
Despite that, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, will remember when times were so much worse for Southampton. I am sorry that he is not here to hear this. I had a season ticket when he was chairman—[Hon. Members: “He’s there!”] Oh, there he is, speaking to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not listening to a word I am saying. I remember this from when I was a fan in the stands, calling for so much better. I hope for the sake of football that today this Bill does not go the same way as the Saints’ season.
As Ministers know, the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because the game needs financial sustainability. There have been too many Burys, Chesters, Herefords, Macclesfields and Readings. The heritage assets in our game need protection. Who can forget when Cardiff were forced to play in red, or when Wimbledon were moved against their will to Milton Keynes?
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Bill must expand the list of protected assets to include training grounds, car parks and hotels. The owner of Reading football club, Dai Yongge, tried to sell the club’s training ground, Bearwood Park, which is in my constituency, without any consultation with the fans. When I was leader of the borough council, I worked to stop the sale with fan groups such as Sell Before We Dai, and we were successful. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill needs provisions to ensure that assets such as training grounds are never again sold off for the gain of the owner?
Max Wilkinson
I agree. There are too many examples of football clubs being separated from their stadiums, training grounds and assets, and it is a disgrace every single time when football clubs are asset-stripped.
I mentioned sustainability, heritage and fan engagement. Those are the three things we think the Bill will bring about—those are its aims. Although the Bill is not perfect, it will make important progress on all those points. Indeed, shortly after I was elected, the board of Cheltenham Town and the Robins Trust both asked me clearly to back the Bill. We will do so because it is the right thing to do.
The Bill is cross-party in origin. We should all thank Tracey Crouch for her work on the fan-led review and the shadow Minister for his subsequent work on the Bill in the last Parliament. It is a shame that Dame Tracey’s party has decided to score an own goal today. The Conservatives might seek to present themselves as akin to the England heroes in 1966, but in trying to kill the Bill, they are more like the villainous Maradona and his “hand of God” in 1986. By seeking to kill the football regulator, they are betraying football fans the length and breadth of the country—they are going in studs-up on football fans. That is the kind of political acumen that means that they represent only one football league club. Can anyone name it?
Max Wilkinson
Bromley—there we go. I think that has rather proved my point for me. The Conservatives’ reference to the risk of increased ticket prices suggests that they are either uninformed about or wilfully ignorant of the existing problems that football fans suffer every week with ticket price inflation, as tens of thousands of fans will confirm. Unaccountable football club owners are not forced to engage with football fans on the issue of ticket pricing.
In my reflections on how to improve the Bill, I will begin with financial fairness. According to Simon Perruzza, the chief executive of the Cheltenham Town Community Trust, the Bill is needed
“to ensure clubs like ours continue to make a valuable contribution to supporters and the community, the game’s fractured governance model and inequitable distribution of finance need to be urgently addressed”.
The Premier League generates more than £3 billion each year from media rights alone, yet the share reaching clubs further down the pyramid is dwindling; it keeps 84% of the revenue now, up from 74% in 2007. Any suggestion that the Premier League is a golden goose that will be killed by the Bill somewhat misunderstands the problem in our game. The campaign group Fair Game warns that the balance of funding between the top division and lower leagues in this country stands in stark contrast to that in other major leagues. The fact is that the money simply is not trickling down here as it does in other European leagues.
Lincoln Jopp
Given that the person who negotiated that rights deal is going to be the regulator, how confident is the hon. Member that they will change the process that he criticises?
Max Wilkinson
Well, that person will be working within the boundaries of the regulator, and he is obviously very good at striking deals, is he not? If the hon. Gentleman’s contention is that he did a good job in his old job, we can be confident that he will do a good job in his new role.
The Liberal Democrats think that the redistributive mechanisms ought to go even further to promote financial sustainability, including by taking account of the restricted resources in the fifth tier, and redistribution beyond that level to cover more grassroots clubs in the national leagues north and south and beyond. Then, there is social responsibility. Football clubs are not just businesses; they are also civic institutions. They are often the most visible and well-loved organisations in any community.
Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords pushed for clubs to be mandated to report on their community work, so I welcome the new clause requiring clubs to do so. In my constituency, the Cheltenham Town Community Trust delivered £5.4 million-worth of social value work with young people and older people, and to reduce antisocial behaviour, in its last reporting year. What gets measured gets done. Clubs want to continue doing such work, but they cannot keep doing it if they cannot afford to because the Premier League is hoarding all the money. We need to go further to support clubs in that, particularly by providing help for smaller clubs that may struggle to fulfil reporting requirements. I agree with the Members who have made similar comments.
We believe that the Bill must go further on problem gambling. Nearly 30,000 gambling messages were posted across the premier league’s opening weekend this season. That represents a tripling of ads compared with the almost 11,000 recorded over the opening weekend of the season before. Such ads are normalising a dangerous relationship between football and gambling that is destroying lives. Football should not be a gateway drug to problem gambling. It cannot be right that, whether watching on television or in the stands, we are bombarded with gambling adverts to the extent that the enjoyment of the game is now, for so many people, culturally intertwined with placing bets. It cannot be right that broadcasters can launch their own gambling platforms, and use advert breaks to promote those platforms, using the pundits who describe the games as mouthpieces for gambling. That merger of journalism and advertising should give us all pause for thought.
Graham Stuart
To be clear, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the regulator should intervene on the issue of gambling ads rather than this House taking responsibility for doing so? I worry about the regulator’s reach spreading and about it forcing small clubs to engage with their communities over ticket prices and so forth; if there has to be a regulator, we must keep it highly constrained.
Max Wilkinson
The football regulator would have a wider role than currently envisaged in the Bill if the Liberal Democrats were in charge.
When the Lords tried to tackle the proliferation of gambling ads, the Government committed a professional foul. As the Bill makes its way through this House, we hope that MPs will show gambling companies a yellow card—yellow cards on this matter are very Liberal—not a red card; we do not propose the banning of gambling, shadow Ministers will be pleased to hear.
Max Wilkinson
I will not be placing any bets from this Chamber today—not to the benefit of myself anyway.
On ownership, this Bill provides a stronger defence against owners who might have a dodgy track record, but there are still gaps at the back. The new owners and directors test still makes no explicit mention of human rights. That is a glaring miss. Sportswashing is an all-too-common tactic used by oppressive regimes to launder their reputations through our national game. As the historic home of the global game, we have a moral duty to seek to use the soft power of football. Those who want to run a football club in this country should not be able to do so while running roughshod over human dignity elsewhere in the world. Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to replace the red carpet for dodgy foreign owners with a red card.
On broadcasting, not a single premier league match this season has been shown on free-to-air television. All 380 matches in the premier league now lie behind a paywall, while matchday tickets are increasingly expensive. The latest deals will see Sky Sports and TNT Sports have the rights to show premier league matches for a four-year period. That means that those without a subscription will have no opportunity to watch a live match on television until the 2030s at the earliest.
Spain’s la liga has one free-to-air game per week, as does England’s women’s super league. We will continue to champion expanded access to free live sport broadcasting in this Bill. We will also call for the strengthening of the Bill to ban domestic games being played abroad. The thought of Manchester City playing Arsenal in Dubai should leave us all reaching for the sick bucket.
We can go further to build a game that is open, accountable and properly rooted in its communities. Every good manager knows when to switch to a 4-3-3 and bring on the super-sub. It could be Steve Howard—I understand that the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is a Birmingham City fan. Now is the time for Ministers to embrace that principle of bringing on substitutes, changing the formation and being even more ambitious about this Bill; after all, they have more than enough players sitting on the Government Benches to be more ambitious. They should do that because football is not just a business. It is part of who we are as a nation, so let us treat it that way.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Bill is very much rooted in what Dame Tracey Crouch recommended in the fan-led review. I asked the shadow Secretary of State if he could detail any ways in which this Bill deviated from what Tracey Crouch recommended. He mentioned independence and went on about that for some considerable length of time. No other proposal in the Bill differs from the fan-led review—not a single one. The reality is that the shadow Secretary of State did not even convince himself with his arguments today. There is a phrase that football fans chant—“You don’t know what you’re doing”—and it seemed to apply to his speech today. I am sorry about that because I respect his past contribution to the previous Bill, which is the framework for what is before us now, with one or two improvements.
Dame Tracey’s recommendation H is clear and is key to the fan-led review:
“Fair distributions are vital to the long term health of football. The Premier League should guarantee its support to the pyramid”.
That is key. The pyramid is uniquely British. The strength of the pyramid is uniquely British. We therefore need to preserve it, but we need a fairer distribution of resources in order to do that. One change proposed in this Bill is the potential to include parachute payments when the regulator comes to a view on what the distribution should be. Instead of simply ignoring parachute payments—pretending they do not exist, as the previous Bill did—this legislation recognises the problem that currently 92% of the distributed funding for football goes to 25 clubs: the premier league clubs and the clubs receiving parachute payments. Those clubs receiving parachute payments have basically 10 times more resources than the clubs getting payments through the solidarity fund from the Premier League.
This is a nonsense. We can see the difference now between the championship and the premier league; this year is, I think, the first when all three promoted clubs have been relegated straight back down, and there is a great difference between their points totals and the points total of West Ham, just above them. This is not sustainable—not at that level nor going down the leagues, as clubs simply struggle to survive.
Dr Luke Evans
The English premier league is the best in the world. Any bar we go into across the world wants to show premier league football. There is a real danger of killing the golden goose if we try to pull that down. Also, the championship is the seventh most valuable league in Europe, and it is our second tier. I have a big worry here. We should look at the way England is playing, and at the way the clubs have come up. Leicester won the premier league in 2016, and the likes of Brighton and Brentford and Nottingham Forest are all flying up the leagues. The premier league is a competitive league, and that is what we want; we do not want to over-regulate it and kill both our national game and our international presence.
Mr Betts
I am sorry, but we must kill this myth that somehow the Bill is going to kill the premier league. It is not. This Bill is designed to sustain the rest of the football pyramid. We should look at the resources the premier league has: it has twice as much money as any other major European league. That is the difference. Taking a proportion of that away to support the rest of the pyramid will not undermine and destroy the premier league. It will help sustain the rest of the pyramid, and that is the message that we need to get across.
On the rest of the Bill, the issue of the sustainability of the pyramid is absolutely key, but I am still a bit wary about the rigidity of the backstop powers. There is some room for debate about giving a bit more flexibility to the regulators on that; I hope we can discuss that in Committee. The other key element is about ownership. We have heard stories about the problems that clubs have had with owners who simply are not fit for purpose, and I have no doubt that we will hear more. I was talking to colleagues in Reading on a Teams call the other day, along with other Sheffield MPs, and we discussed the problems facing Sheffield Wednesday supporters. We should stop clubs having to face such problems in the future.
On Sheffield Wednesday, the owner is not a bad man; he has put a lot of money into the club and he has not ripped it off, but he is clearly running out of money to make the club sustainable. He could not pay the players’ wages last month, and he could not pay the tax dues a few weeks ago. Another failure to pay will mean the club is subject to a transfer embargo for three transfer windows. That would completely undermine both the competitive and the financial basis of the club. That is not acceptable. The chairman is the only owner and the only director; he does not have a board of directors and has no chief executive. He runs the club from Thailand by remote control, and when he could not pay the bills he said, “Well, my companies are owed money, so I don’t have the money to pay the club’s bills.” We do not know what companies those are in Thailand. As far as we can see, he has no companies that earn money. We suspect that the money comes from the family trust that owns Thai Union Frozen Products, which owns John West and other brands. In other words, he is reliant on his family members to give him the money to pay the players’ wages. That is not sustainable. This Bill compels the regulator to make sure that owners have the funds to sustain their club, and that the sources of those funds are transparent and open for all to see. That is absolutely key, not only for Sheffield Wednesday but for lots of other clubs.
Finally, I am concerned that the owner, like owners of other clubs, has separated the ownership of the ground from the ownership of the club, and I hope we can strengthen the Bill on that issue. I do not think that was done for malevolent reasons; it was done to try to get around the financial fair play rules, and to help the club—that was his view. The fact is that the ground and the club are separate. Other clubs have that problem as well. In future, if an owner wants to separate the club and the ground, the regulator can step in to ensure that that is for proper reasons, and done in the proper way. Unfortunately, when ownership of the ground is separate from ownership of the club, there is a challenge. I would like a measure in the Bill that says that in order to get a licence, the owner has to prove that they have not only financial funding but a ground to play on. That should be locked in.
Changes and improvements can be made, but the Bill really helps football. It helps fans to ensure that their club is sustainable, and it holds owners to account. It is great that fans will now have a real role and involvement in their club. They can be properly consulted about what happens at Hillsborough; currently, there is an engagement panel for fans, but the chairman chooses who goes on it. When people join the engagement panel, they have to sign a document that states that they will not talk about what has been discussed outside the group. What sort of accountability is that? It is nonsense. The Bill will strengthen the hand of fans, so that they can properly engage with a club. I fully support it, and hope that the House overwhelmingly supports it, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I start my comments by speaking not as the Chair of the Select Committee, but as a football fan—in particular, with apologies to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a Portsmouth FC fan. I understand very well what a football club means to a community, a local way of life and the fans, and what they will do to protect it. In the five years that followed Portsmouth’s fantastic FA cup victory in 2008, we really went through the wringer. The club boardroom seemed to have a revolving door. We had a succession of owners, each worse than the last. The club entered administration twice, and it had a 10-point deduction on two occasions. Pompey suffered three relegations in four seasons. I saw what that did to the city of my birth and to the fans, who feel as strongly about the club as I do.
The club was pulled from the brink of oblivion by the largest fan-led buy-out in history—fans put their money where their mouth is. They had to, because the club was at risk of extinction. The Pompey Supporters Trust was formed. Some 2,300 Pompey fans invested their own money and became shareholders, raising around £2.5 million. Remarkably, under that fan-led ownership model, the Pompey Supporters Trust was able to declare the club debt-free in September 2014, just 18 months after taking over.
Not all clubs are so lucky. Time and again we have heard in the Chamber stories of clubs falling into the hands of unscrupulous owners who have little regard or care for the club history, or what it means to the local community. They do not listen to the fans, who we all know are the blood that runs through the veins of our football clubs up and down the country. It was that, alongside the spectre of the European super league, that the previous Government had in mind when they commissioned the fan-led review, captained so brilliantly by my friend Dame Tracey Crouch. It was pivotal in the genesis of this Bill. I hope that this rebooted Bill will protect English football and keep clubs at the beating heart of their communities, just as much as its previous iteration did.
Some of the Government’s changes to the legislation echo the previous Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendations. First, on enhanced fan engagement, we know that English football fans are some of the most passionate in the world. Their voices must be heard. For too long, fans have been left in the dark about decisions on ticket pricing, home shirt colour changes and home ground relocation. I welcome the Bill’s commitment on that. I also welcome the removal of the requirement for the regulator to consider Government foreign and trade policy when deciding whether to approve club takeovers. That should ensure the regulator’s operational independence from Government—a subject to which I will return.
There has been controversy around aspects of the Bill, and particularly on the inclusion of parachute payments in the financial distribution mechanism, which has inevitably sparked hostility towards the Bill. However, in a room of 10 people there would be 10 different opinions on how the parachute payments should work. The legislation will never please everybody. Some people oppose the Bill entirely, and others have voiced dissent for myriad reasons; there is growing criticism of the Bill this time around. The sheer number of amendments tabled in the other place was a sign of that discontent. It will be crucial to ensure that the legislation is right, and we have only one chance to do so.
I suggest we take a moment to remind ourselves of the findings of the fan-led review, and of why the idea of a regulator was conceived in the first place. It was conceived because self-regulation simply is not working, although it was given many chances over many years. The leagues have not been able to reach a deal on financial distribution themselves. We should not forget that, left to their own devices, six greedy clubs planned to break away to form the European super league, risking English football itself.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is shame that there has not been recognition from the Dispatch Box that there would be no premier league if there was no grassroots football? The better our grassroots football, the better the league will be.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right. English football thrives because the ecosystem runs from the grassroots to the top of the elite. Our job is to ensure that it continues to thrive, and that every aspect of that ecosystem is protected and supported. Some irresponsible club owners continue to play fast and loose with club finances and assets. Far too many clubs have been on the brink of collapse, and that is why the regulator must have a role in protecting English football. However, the regulator will need to bring together all voices in that complex ecosystem for it to work properly.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, is looking forward to our pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, the preferred candidate, next week. It has been a long journey to get here, as I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates, having scheduled and then postponed hearings more than once, as Ministers have struggled to pick a candidate. The chair of the football regulator will be utterly critical to ensuring that the regulator performs its role well. They will steer the ship. They will set the temperature for football, going forward. They will have to come in on the front foot and broker strong relationships with stakeholders across football to get full buy-in. I have already spoken about some of the nay-sayers and detractors. The chair will need to build faith and demonstrate a good understanding of the dynamic football ecosystem to have the clout that they will need. However, they need to ensure they do not come with a load of industry baggage. It is a really difficult position to be in. At the same time, to be effective, they must demonstrate regulatory experience.
Ultimately, the chair will have to demonstrate that they can be objective, fair and, crucially, independent of Government, the leagues and individual football clubs. It is a very difficult job to recruit for. Indeed, UEFA has raised concerns and threatened sanctions over the prospect of Government interference. That is why I am surprised that the Government have proposed a candidate who is so close to the Labour party, and who has donated money to the Chancellor and others. It raises concerns about whether the regulator can truly be seen as independent, given their close ties to members of the Government. I expect that the Committee will want to explore that in detail when we hear from Mr Kogan next week. He will need to demonstrate that he intends the regulator to be operationally 100% independent from political interference. I struggle to see how that will happen, but my mind is open, because the Select Committee’s job is to hold a pre-appointment hearing with this potential regulator.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, the former chair of the BBC, clearly a talented, capable and very smart man, was undone by the impression that he gave of lacking independence from Government. Like the BBC, very many people out there are willing this body to fail, and I do not want to see that happen. The worst-case scenario for everybody is if the regulator is undermined in its infancy.
Even before the chair is in place, there have been some concerning signs about the Government’s approach to the independent football regulator. We know that many clubs in the premier league in particular have expressed misgivings and in some cases very strong opposition to the regulator. Despite what the Secretary of State has said—she has spoken very strongly on this—there are some lingering doubts. The whole process has been plagued by leaks and delays. Members have seen and heard the rumours that the regulator was poised to be thrown out on to the latest bonfire of quangos even before it had started. When discussing the so-called blockers, it seems telling that the Government chose to single out the Gardens Trust, Sport England and the Theatres Trust, which will no longer be consulted over planning. When considering AI and copyright, the Government seem to be siding with big tech over creative industries. Members will forgive me for beginning to feel like the sectors we represent on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are not valued by the Secretary of State’s Department.
I look forward to hearing next week from the proposed regulator and to seeing the Bill progress through the House. I think the Bill can improve the resilience of clubs and encourage sensible financial decisions. I would like clarity on how the regulator will operate alongside the cost control measures that it will have no oversight of, such as premier league profit and sustainability rules, which we have recently seen clubs such as Chelsea manipulate to their own advantage and which will arguably undermine the regulator. I would be grateful if the Minister came back to me on that. I also want cast-iron assurances that the Bill will prevent the sort of painful, appalling situation that has been experienced by Reading FC with its owner, Dai Yongge. Otherwise, we will all be wasting our time.
It is imperative that this Bill safeguards English football, which is central to our communities and to the national fabric of our country. Football is a unifier: it brings people together for the love of the game, from the grassroots to the top of the elite clubs, and it is the envy of the world. All the other countries in the world would love to have our football leagues. We must secure its future for generations to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. With just shy of 50 Members wishing to contribute, the only way that I can guarantee the maximum number of contributions is by having a speaking limit of five minutes to begin with.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I am wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill, as are many of my constituents. I place on record my regard for Dame Tracey Crouch; we would not be here today if she had not initiated this excellent Bill. I also give a mention to the former Members for South East Cambridgeshire and for Bristol West, along with all the fan groups and other bodies that have engaged in this lengthy process.
Sheffield is at the heart of football’s story. Although I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United, it has often flown under the radar that our city is also home to the oldest club in the world: Sheffield football club. The club is approaching its 170th birthday, and to this day it still plays in the oldest derby in the world against Hallam FC.
Critics of this Bill question why the Government are getting involved in football, but stories such as that illustrate that football clubs are no ordinary businesses. Many of our largest clubs were originally formed by workers in towns and cities up and down the country, and they remain an essential part of the heart and soul of our communities. I have had the privilege of seeing at first hand some of the excellent work being done in Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough by Marcus and his team at the Sheffield Wednesday FC Community Programme, and I place on the record my thanks for all that they do. The good work that many of our clubs do for constituents in need and the joy that they can bring to many more only emphasise further why the Government are right to protect these vital assets. Our clubs are not the playthings of the wealthy, to be recklessly mismanaged and tossed aside when the lustre of custodianship wears off.
Last week, I and a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), had the privilege of meeting with the SWFC Supporters Trust to hear its concerns about the direction of the club under its present custodianship. I do not have enough time to list the many issues highlighted at the meeting, but one key issue was the disregard for fan engagement and even abusive disdain for the trust and other groups from the club. I gently remind all those fortunate enough to be custodians of football clubs that without the fans, clubs are nothing. That is why I am pleased that this Bill will introduce a minimum standard for fan engagement and compel clubs to democratically select their fan representatives.
I strongly welcome another change that this Government have made from the previous iteration of the Bill in allowing the regulator to examine parachute payments. The strength of our football pyramid is the envy of many nations, but a pyramid is nothing without a stable foundation. I believe that providing support to relegated clubs is important, but parachute payments in their current form are undermining our pyramid; they have ballooned to become one of the most distortive elements of the modern game. Last season’s parachute payments to five recently relegated clubs were three times as much as the amount that 67 other EFL teams received in total. In my view, that is the driving force behind many of our beloved clubs being run in increasingly unsustainable ways. It is no wonder that the majority of the top 92 clubs in the game are technically insolvent. The damage that irresponsible owners leave in their wake is immeasurable, as too many of my hon. Friends have sadly been able to attest to today.
I am pleased that Government are getting to grips with the situation, and I look forward to supporting this Bill as it makes its way through Parliament, helping to safeguard the future of all the clubs in the pyramid.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Wherever I have been in the world, whether it is in Hertsmere or at the United Nations, I am always asked two questions: “When did you meet the late Queen?” and “Which football team do you support?” Such is the strength and reach of English football.
As I have said to this House before, English football is a cherished cultural and soft power that ranks alongside our greatest museums, galleries and stately homes. Indeed, I saw that again this Friday at my brilliant local club, Boreham Wood FC, led by the indefatigable Danny Hunter. Three generations of his family have sustained that club, sustaining community life, providing education, nurturing us through covid and facilitating the next generation of stars to rise all the way to the top of the premier league. I did not hesitate to act when English football was threatened by the rapacious greed of the proposed European super league, which would have deracinated six of our greatest clubs. It is in that resistance to the ESL that the roots of this Bill lie. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, threatened a “legislative bomb”, which resulted in us bringing forward the governance review led by my excellent former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch.
In our consideration of this legislation, I caution that English football survives on cut-throat competition in which the rewards for victory are high and the costs of failure are equally high. It is also dependent on significant levels of global investment. Well-structured investment is not a threat to English football: it is one of its great strengths. I could list many examples. We have Manchester City, which is backed by the Abu Dhabi United Group and which has posted record revenues of more than £700 million and profits of £73 million based on solid equity, not risky leverage. That is exactly the sort of leverage that is demanded. Likewise, Newcastle United’s new ownership, led by the Public Investment Fund, has brought more than £300 million of fresh investment without debt, so we have a thriving team and jobs created, with silverware returned. Beyond the premier league, we have seen what the injection of funds at Wrexham has done for its extraordinary ascent through the league. And at Tottenham Hotspur, their fabulous stadium is now expanding to include things like the Eubank-Benn masterclass at the weekend.
This all leads to the core question before the House, which I have very little time to address, but I will try to make my point succinctly. There is undoubtedly a case for regulation. The pyramid is not working, with £100 million for TV rights at the bottom of the premier league as opposed to £4 million at the top of the EFL. We need to address that—it is not sustainable. Likewise, the movement from the national league to the EFL is something that we need to expand, as exemplified by the 3UP campaign. However, before we go down this path, we should look at how circumstances have changed in the past year. Look at the change in the global investment environment, principally as a result of instability in the US, and at the national insurance hike faced by every club up and down the country. Is this really the right moment to proceed with further regulation?
Based on my 20 years’ experience in and out of government, I caution the House that when a regulator is created, however benign the intention, a self-serving bureaucracy always seeks to expand its scope over time. That will be the case for this piece of legislation, and this regulator will be on the front and back pages of the newspapers every single day. We have already heard arguments from Lib Dem colleagues for expanding the scope of the regulator before it is even up and running. In this changed environment, and given measures such as the backstop and its application to the pyramid and to parachute payments, I think there remains a window in which we can threaten this kind of regulation but not actually introduce it, because I fear the damage it will do.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I regret that I cannot give way. For the reasons I have described, I will be voting accordingly at the end of this debate.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I declare my interest at the outset, as I volunteer as a trustee of Millwall Community Trust.
This Bill has been a long time in the making, and there has been more than a little bit of scaremongering along the way about the implications of a regulator for the future of the premier league. The Bill does not pose an existential threat to the premier league, and no one who supports it wants to undermine the success of the premier league. The existential threat is to the football pyramid, should we fail to secure a fairer distribution of resources. The EFL estimates that its clubs will lose £450 million this season. That loss will have to be covered by the generosity of those clubs’ owners, and where that does not occur, we end up in situations like we had with Bury, Derby, Wigan and many others.
In 2020, the EFL proposed a 75:25 split of the combined TV revenues of both leagues, which at the time would have meant approximately £300 million of additional funding for the wider football pyramid. Instead, in the four years since the EFL first made that proposal, spending on transfers in the premier league has gone up by £850 million. In the 2022-23 season, the premier league spent £2.8 billion on player transfers; the other major European leagues spent around £750 million per league. Turning to wages, the premier league spent a combined sum of €4.6 billion on players’ salaries. Its nearest rival spent an aggregate sum of €2.5 billion—that is a gap of over €2 billion. Compared with the Bundesliga, the gap is nearly €2.5 billion, and for France and Italy, the gap is about €2.8 billion. The £300 million extra that the EFL was asking for pales into insignificance when compared with those sums of money, so a fairer distribution of revenues would not impact on the ability of the premier league to pay the highest salaries for players or the highest prices for player transfers. It will, however, make an enormous difference to the sustainability of the pyramid.
Currently, the 20 premier league clubs and the five clubs in receipt of parachute payments get 92% of the distributable money, which is around £3 billion. The remaining 67 clubs of the EFL get a total of 8%, or £245 million. That distorts competition in the EFL and encourages clubs to overspend. The premier league clubs have to agree to change the distribution of TV revenues across the pyramid. In the four years that this has been under discussion, no acceptable proposal has been put forward, so it is clear that football needs an adjudicator to end this impasse. Although it is reasonable to help clubs adjust to being in the championship, it is not acceptable to sustain a system that forces clubs to overspend in order to compete with clubs that are receiving parachute payments. Over the past seven seasons, two of the clubs promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. The top three places in the championship this season have gone to clubs in receipt of parachute payments, with two matches still to go. The 75:25 split will eradicate the need for parachute payments altogether, create a level playing field, and remove the incentive for non-parachute payment clubs to overstretch themselves financially.
Another major issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has mentioned, is that of clubs being separated from their grounds. That has happened to my local club, Charlton Athletic, and to many other clubs. It is difficult to see how the Bill could deal with that issue retrospectively, but it is one that we must not lose sight of. It may not be possible to solve it through this Bill, but it is something that we need to deal with urgently. The time has come for a football regulator, which cannot fail to recognise that the current situation is not sustainable and that it must usher in a fairer system. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in getting us to this point, and I look forward to playing my part in assisting the Bill’s passage through this House.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Having been elected more recently, I am somewhat less burdened by previous legislation, but let me be clear: having worked in sports administration for many years, I have serious misgivings about a Government regulator in football. I know that this legislation started out as a very well-meaning initiative, but I have concerns—they have already been raised by other hon. Members—about creeping scope and the potential impact of Government meddling in a great British success story.
It is hard to argue that the premier league is not England’s finest export. It is the envy of global football, a competitive and unpredictable league that attracts the biggest names in the game to play in front of packed stadia, with hundreds of millions more watching around the world. The league contributes over £8 billion to the UK economy, pays £4 billion in tax, and employs over 90,000 people. Its reach is truly unparalleled, as other hon. Members have referenced. I have seen kids wearing Chelsea shirts in rural Rwanda and met Man United fans in Pyongyang—in fact, it may surprise the House to know that the premier league is widely watched in North Korea, albeit through pirated broadcasts. However, I understand that Spurs do not regularly feature in the coverage, thanks to their captain Son Heung-min.
I am sympathetic to fans up and down the country who fear that the owner of their football club is going to run it into the ground. As a Leeds fan, I know a thing or two about bad ownership and financial mismanagement, and we have heard some good examples of that from Members representing Reading and Sheffield Wednesday. However, we should dispel the myth that every football club owner is some super-rich maniac trying to squander their fortune in order to destroy a local football club.
Peter Swallow
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that not all football club owners are maniacs determined to ruin their club, but I gently point out that this regulator will ensure that those clubs that do have such owners will be better protected in future. Does he not accept that point?
Charlie Dewhirst
I disagree on the ideological level—on the ideological point about who should regulate football. I will come on to that in a second, but I do not believe it is the Government’s job. I believe that the football landscape already provides for regulation.
Charlie Dewhirst
No, I will make some progress on this point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
As a former employee of a football club, Hull City, and as someone who has worked for a national governing body of a sport at the Rugby Football Union, and for a national elite sport funding body at UK Sport, I have some experience of this issue. Each of those bodies—the EFL, the EPL and the FA—has a role in regulation.
Chris Vince
As a fellow Leeds United supporter, the hon. Gentleman was probably prepared for me to talk about the finances around the transfer of Seth Johnson to Leeds United, but does he recognise the words of John Madejski, who said that the best way to become a millionaire is to be a billionaire and own a football team? Does he recognise that the current ownership model needs to change?
Charlie Dewhirst
Those of us who support a club that was previously owned by Ken Bates and Massimo Cellino have had our fair share of rough ownership over the years.
Coming back to the wider landscape and who should regulate, above the Football Association, EFL and EPL we have UEFA and FIFA as international bodies representing the global game, and they each have a regulatory function. I believe that instead of the Government creating yet another quango, headed up by a Labour party crony, they should be working with the Premier League, EFL and FA to resolve current concerns such as financial sustainability and fit and proper ownership. That would be a far more satisfactory outcome for the clubs and ensure that sport and politics are kept at arm’s length.
Mark Ferguson
The hon. Gentleman mentions UEFA and FIFA. Would he categorise those as organisations where politics is kept at arm’s length and where there is no place for cronyism?
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member raises a very good point. FIFA’s recent history is not a proud one, but we do not have time to go into that. There is an important point about the way in which UEFA and FIFA operate within the landscape. There is a danger that measures including parachute payments, which affect competition tools and structures, being in the scope of the Bill places the Government on a collision course with those international federations. That has already been discussed.
Ultimately, the fact we are here discussing this Bill today is a sad indictment of the relationship between the existing stakeholders. However, it is not beyond the wit of Government to find solutions that do not involve a new regulator. [Interruption.] Well, I am not burdened by previous legislation. I also worry that the Bill is playing to a certain viewpoint among EFL clubs that money from the bottom half of the premier league should be redistributed en masse to the championship. Those clubs argue that that would give the promoted clubs—one of which I am a fan of—a better chance of success.
I fear that could have serious unintended consequences. It could create a small group of entrenched successful clubs at the top of the premier league and ultimately damage competition, as the top clubs accumulate more and more wealth, to the detriment of clubs lower down. It would effectively end any chance of a club such as Leicester winning the title, or teams such as Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford and Nottingham Forest cementing themselves in the league and challenging for Europe. It would be another two-tier system created by this Labour Government.
The idea that the championship is a poor relation is also false. Every championship club receives £7.8 million from the Premier League, which is between 20% and 40% of their typical annual revenue. The EFL has recently signed a domestic broadcast deal worth more than £900 million, increasing its own revenues by 50%, and the championship is already the sixth-richest league in Europe.
Finally, I want to address the issue of the medium to long-term future of the regulator. This legislation has morphed from creating an independent regulator with a narrow scope to creating a Government regulator headed up by a Labour party donor, with sprawling powers. Once the regulator has dealt with the most pressing issues, who knows how it might justify its existence in future. The devil will surely make work for idle hands. My fear is that the football regulator will not behave as a guardian of the sport but will instead look to involve itself more and more in day-to-day club operations.
We have come a long way since the dark days of the 1980s—an era that reached its nadir just under 40 years ago with the Heysel disaster, which saw English clubs banned from European competition for five years. It was a period when the best English players sought to ply their trade in Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1. English football is now the envy of the world. I am sure our competitors in Spain, Italy and Germany are watching and would be delighted if we were to regulate ourselves into a less competitive place. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Football is the beautiful game, and it is truly the world’s game. For a century or so, the game had an ever-changing churn of clubs having periods of success. The game was not totally dominated by money, though money has always been a factor. With the inception of the premier league, quite literally the game changed. I am not being overly critical of the premier league—it has, after all, made the English league the greatest and most watched league in the world.
The money that has flooded in from TV rights and sponsorship has led to many of the world’s greatest players plying their trade in this country, which only adds to the global appeal. But the money, vast as it is, is nearly all in the premier league. The gulf between the bottom of the premier league and the top of the championship is enormous. The prize money for coming last in the premier league is four times greater than the prize money for the winners of the championship, and that is before the over £80 million that each premier league club gets from TV rights. This makes the desperation to reach the top flight greater than ever. Promotion does not just mean competing with the best teams; it now represents financial security.
One of a number of clubs that have fallen foul of too much risk and overstretching themselves in order to reach the promised land of the premier league is my beloved Derby County FC—one of the founding members of the football league, champions of England twice, FA cup winners, and European cup semi-finalists. Sadly, having failed in the championship play-offs four times in six years, Derby could not quite take the final step to financial security. Therefore, its unusual take on amortisation and its questionable way of making money out of its own stadium became much bigger problems. It was the premier league or bust, and for Derby it was very nearly bust.
Derby went into administration, which in itself cost the club about £3 million just for the administrators. Despite the club’s proud history and remarkable fan base, with home gates averaging 28,000, Derby County almost ceased to exist as a result of financial issues, with the club being, according to the current owner David Clowes, just one week away from going out of business. I imagine that most Derby supporters would say that the creation of an independent football regulator would be a good idea. The concept of a regulator comes from the people who make football what it is: the fans. It is, after all, a recommendation from the fan-led review.
The objectives of the IFR are sound: to protect and promote financial stability and financial resilience, and to safeguard our football heritage. Under the Bill, each club will have to submit regular financial plans and regularly consult with fans. Clubs will also have to demonstrate that they have the resources to sustain operations and show that they have the systems in place to manage financial risk. The measures will help ensure that the risks taken by Derby County cannot be taken again.
I welcome clause 46 of the Bill, which will require clubs to get approval IFR before selling their home grounds or using them as security for a loan. Clause 45 will prevent another European super league debacle—a situation where there was no consultation and no real competition, just a licence to print money at the expense of the integrity of the English game. Cardiff fans will no doubt be pleased to see clause 49, which prevents a change of team colours.
While I strongly support the Bill, I want to raise an issue brought to my attention by one of my constituents, former Arsenal and Leeds goalkeeper John Lukic. He has highlighted the growing number of ex-players suffering from CTE, which is a form of dementia caused by repeated heading of the ball. I am encouraged to hear that the Secretary of State will meet with Football Families for Justice. Football can and should do more to look after its former players.
English football has been such a success, bringing joy and occasional pain to so many. I do not want another mass march to save Derby County. I do not want another 21-point deduction. Everyone wants their team to be successful. More than that, everyone wants their team to exist. I urge Members to support the Bill.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I want to start by congratulating Cheadle Town Stingers, which yesterday confirmed its second place in the women’s national league division one north, just missing out on promotion by goal difference in what was their first season in the national league. I hope the House will share my congratulations to manager Dylan Wimbury and the whole team for this fantastic campaign. I have every confidence that the team will go one better next season.
Football has been a key part of my life since I can remember. When I was a youngster of about seven, I remember scoffing down my Sunday lunch so I could rush in front of the TV and watch my heroes, John Barnes and Ian Rush, put every team they played to the sword. I was a seven-year-old glory hunter, transfixed by the way Liverpool would seem effortlessly to breeze past teams. The iconic red kit became my uniform whenever I played in the park with my friends.
I can still remember my first game. I remember the long walk up what seemed like an endless mountain of steps to then come in full view of that bright green carpet, surrounded by a sea of scarves, banners and flags, and the players. My heroes were warming up on the pitch. I can still remember how it made me feel. It felt like falling in love for the very first time, because football has that power. It can bring people together in a way that only a few cultural spectacles can. Whether it is a few hundred people watching a non-league club in Greater Manchester or 90,000 people watching the FA cup final in Wembley, for 90 minutes football encourages us to dream together.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I am interested in the community involvement aspect. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Mental health among men particularly is at a crisis point; in fact, suicide is a leading cause of death under 50. Will the hon. Member commend my club, Forest Green Rovers, which is trying to re-enter the English Football League, for developing a scheme of “football on prescription”, which refers men to football so that they can feel better and more socially included?
Mr Morrison
That is absolutely fantastic work. Football creates togetherness and is incredibly important for our communities. That is why the Football Governance Bill is so important. For too many years, we have seen our game threatened by a variety of actors, be it poor owners, the creation of super leagues or the ever-increasing prices of matchday, which mean that only a smaller and smaller group of people can experience the game. The aims of the Bill to fix that are highly commendable, and I fully support them.
Clive Jones
Terms for the sale of Reading football club have been agreed, but we are currently waiting for Dai Yongge’s signature for a deal to go through. Sadly, we have been here before. His ownership has been a Shakespearean tragedy. He has attempted to asset-strip the club, bleeding it dry and holding it back from success. Does my hon. Friend agree that Dai must sell and allow Reading football club to enter a new era?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Cheadle responds, let me say that if interventions are long, even fewer colleagues will be able to get in. Interventions should be short. They should not be speeches.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is absolutely key. We have a history in this country of poor owners taking our clubs for granted, and it is the fans who pay.
There are things in the Bill that I would like us to consider further. I would like to see more detail and focus on how football governance can support the wider football pyramid outside the football leagues. I mentioned Cheadle Town Stingers at the beginning of my comments. Cheadle Town is a wonderful example of a community-run football club that champions excellence, not only on the field but off it. The club sits in the heart of Cheadle and plays an active role in its community, providing support for local food banks and coaching for local schools. It is also, in my view, an exemplar of how both the men’s and women’s game should be championed in this country. There is a true “one club” mentality in Cheadle Town, where the successes of both teams are worked for and celebrated equally, exactly as they should be. This is a true community club, and everything that the Football Governance Bill needs to protect.
The campaign organisation Fair Game puts it best:
“Addressing the deeply flawed financial flow in the game could see extra money flooding into the towns and cities that have lower league football clubs.”
We all know that the Premier League receives the lion’s share of the market revenue. In 2023, just 25 clubs received a massive 92% of the revenues across the English game, while the other 67 clubs in the football leagues received just 8%. This disparity is completely eye-watering, but it does not even begin to take into account the clubs further below. These are the clubs that are at real risk. They have to fundraise and save to make sure they can put the floodlights on. Many non-league clubs are now struggling with the rise in energy prices, which have quadrupled in the last few years, while others have had to sparingly cut the grass on their pitches to save further costs. Facilities are also a key issue. Across Cheadle, there are just three full-sized 3G pitches, which are shared between 40 different teams, while of the 18 grass pitches in Stockport, five have no changing facilities at all, which has a disproportionate impact on women’s teams and disability teams.
The issues in our game are not just impacting the premier and football leagues; they are having a massive and sometimes fatal impact on our grassroots game. Although the Football Governance Bill starts to mitigate these issues, it does very little to encourage clubs, particularly the larger premier league clubs, to support the very lower tiers of the football pyramid. I would like to see that changed as the Bill progresses and more thought given to how our grassroots game can be supported. Football is about community and often represents what is best about community spirit, so supporting the game at its very base needs to be more of a priority. This Bill is a step forward for football in this country and should be welcomed, but there is more to do. I hope the Government will take that on board and introduce a regulator that not only protects this wonderful game but promotes it at the community, grassroots level.
Finally, if I may crave your indulgence for 10 more seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to channel that seven-year-old who was obsessed with the likes of John Barnes, Jan Mølby and Ian Rush, and say this: Arne Slot, Big Virg and Mo, thanks for bringing home No. 20.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Congratulations to Liverpool fans.
As we have been hearing this evening, football is more than a game. For my constituents and me, it represents community, joy and sometimes a fair bit of despair, too. It provides jobs, brings people together and is a source of immense pride, in spite of—or especially perhaps in—the darkest of times. Among the most haunting images of the pandemic were those of the football games that had to be played behind closed doors. It was just not the same, for the players, fans or anyone else.
Last night, I was honoured to be invited to join Rotherham United at the English Football League awards. It has been a difficult season on the pitch for the Millers, but the incredible work that the club does in the community never wavers. It supports so many fantastic initiatives across the borough: walking football, the women’s game, youth clubs, fitness classes for pensioners, active travel—the list goes on. I am pleased to be working with the club on projects in Maltby, Kiveton Park and Swallownest in my constituency.
Rotherham is a town that has had a difficult recent history, but it remains proud and has, in my mind, the opportunity to flourish again. The football club will be critical to that mission and right at the heart of it. As we have seen in Bury, Reading, Macclesfield, Bolton and Derby—the list goes on—anything that threatens the existence of clubs like Rotherham is an existential crisis for the town. These are places where the football club, the team, is at the heart of their identity, economy and society.
Offering some security for clubs down the football pyramid must be a priority. That is why I support the Government’s legislation today. The stories of financial ruin are becoming too common. The dam is close to breaking point, and there are increasing signs, not least in the premier league and championship tables today, that the competitiveness at the top of our game is also wilting. This statistic has been quoted many times in the debate, but ultimately, 25 clubs—the 20 premier league teams and five in the championship—receive 92% of the revenue, or £3 billion, while 67 professional clubs share just 8%. This inequality cannot continue, not because of inherent unfairness or moral distaste, but because the game we love is now seemingly stretched to breaking point.
I am sympathetic to the premier league’s position. As we have heard from Members across the House, we should be clear that the premier league is one of the most successful exports in modern Britain. I would not support any measure that could seriously threaten the league’s position at the pinnacle of sporting competition, but in my mind the Bill simply does not do that. First, the financial might of the premier league will not be threatened. There is a €2 billion gap between the premier league and any of its rivals when it comes to wages. Secondly, the Bill purposefully maintains the lightest touch, unless forced into more intrusive action. The Government amendments in the Lords assisted with that, ensuring that the regulator’s focus does not stray beyond a tight remit.
Thirdly, the football pyramid relies upon a thriving premier league. There is no benefit to any party in the negotiation to stifle the competitiveness or commercial success of the premier league. The EFL and the independent regulator must and surely will recognise that in their decision making going forward. Ultimately, there should be a symbiotic relationship between the EFL and the premier league. Each needs the other—a thriving football pyramid producing talented footballers and ambitious clubs, and a premier league that excels.
I would also like to raise the wider football ecosystem. Rotherham United is not in my constituency, but the football ecosystem of the borough, and indeed South Yorkshire and the country, is made up of brilliant non-league clubs. Maltby Main FC, Kiveton Park, Dinnington, which is flying high in the league, and Swallownest, with its famous Swall Siro stadium, all play crucial roles in our communities and are run through the sheer will and hard work of volunteers. Once the Bill has passed, I hope the professional game can consider how we can better help those non-league teams, too.
I have spent nearly 30 years watching football with my dad. I think each of my best friends is someone I met playing the game several years ago. I spend lots of time—too much, many might say—watching, playing and reading about the game. It is the game I love, and I am proud tonight to support this Bill, which goes some way to ensuring that it has a flourishing future for decades to come.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
I should declare my interests, as on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in two football-related businesses as a result of my chairmanship of Southampton football club. We do not have many success stories left, but English domestic football is one of them—so what do politicians want to do? Regulate it, of course. The biggest beneficiary from the success of the Premier League is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, through tax and national insurance levied on player and staff wages. That is money flowing out of the beautiful game. Salaries have correlated closely with the growth of broadcasting income, particularly from overseas television rights. Lord Sugar referred to it as the prune juice effect. No regulator played any part in laying the foundations of the world’s most successful league. English football works and has worked for many decades. My message to all Members today is to leave it alone.
Football is a risk business, supported in this country by the most passionate fans in the world. It requires a balance between risk taking and business savvy, if the aspirations of the supporters are to be delivered in the form of entertaining, successful football of which they can be proud. Many of the failures in our game, such as Bury under Hugh Eaves and Leeds under Peter Ridsdale, were driven by boards dominated by fans rather than by more logical businessmen. The job of running a smaller club in the premier league is difficult at the best of times—I should know—when competing with clubs that have substantially greater turnover. A regulator will simply make the job of smaller clubs more difficult and limit their ability to take calculated risks to successfully compete for promotion, league position or cup success. It is the larger clubs that will benefit, and the dynamic that has driven the premier league’s success will be undermined.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that fan involvement in clubs is a bad thing?
Rupert Lowe
I think the passion of fans can be a dangerous thing if they are on a board, yes. The FA Premier League’s success has been driven by the prescient founding formula for financial distribution, ensuring a competitive league. Under the Bill, fans collectively will suffer, and another more innovative league in another geographic region, probably in Asia, will emerge as a leader. Members might all feel good about themselves, but billions and billions of pounds will be driven out of the country. There is no need for a football regulator or indeed any more wokery in the game, exemplified by the support for a questionable organisation such as Black Lives Matter, when the knee was taken before each game: the world’s best football meets the world’s best virtue signalling.
Just last week, I uncovered two coaching roles offered by Ipswich and Fulham, both specifically excluding white men from applying. Ipswich made the right choice and removed the racist ad; Fulham have not. These roles have been pushed by the Premier League itself. Match-going fans are overwhelmingly male and overwhelmingly white. They would be surprised to hear that clubs are banning them from applying for certain roles based on their skin colour. Racism is racism, even when white people are on the receiving end of it. I hope that all of us in this House call it out for the wickedness that it is.
We must eradicate the poisonous DEI from our beautiful game. Fans attend football to escape all that nonsense. A functional football team is the perfect analogy for any successful society, based on merit and merit alone. Fans do not want ideological lessons from their clubs; they want to watch exciting football, enjoy a beer and have a proper day out. Good for them, I say. All of us here need to leave them alone.
Those responsible for this Bill must also take full responsibility when the premier league inevitably wanes as the woke do-gooders perpetrate the damage that history teaches us is inevitable. The Chancellor speaks oxymoronically about trying to revive our financial markets by regulating for growth, after the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 destroyed London as a centre where capital meets risk. You do not regulate for growth; you deregulate for growth. We do not need this interference by tyre-kicking regulators in our national game. Judging by this debate, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport looks like she is pretty handy on the terraces. I say to her, in football lingo: you don’t know what you’re doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Luke Murphy. Is it your birthday?
Luke Murphy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no place I would rather be than following the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), with his interesting view that the issues of the game are the fault of fans—it was truly enlightening. I am so pleased to speak in this debate on the Football Governance Bill—gifts from colleagues in the form of interventions to extend my speaking time will be gratefully received—not just because the Bill will empower fans, protect clubs and keep them at the heart of their communities, but because it gives me an opportunity, after Basingstoke Town’s final home game of the season, to pay tribute to a wonderful football club and the entire community that surrounds it, supports it and stands by it through thick and thin.
It was a delight to see the team get the victory they richly deserved on Saturday by beating the league champions, Merthyr Town, 4-0. The result secured our position in the southern league premier south for another season. The ’Stoke are staying up. More than that, it was just a joy, after a tough season, to see the dedicated team who lead and manage the club, the players, the support staff, the volunteers and our loyal fans celebrating after so much hard work. In his open letter to the fans after Saturday’s game, the manager Dan Brownlie gave
“a massive thank you to the staff, volunteers, board and players. It goes way beyond match days. Endless meetings, endless hours behind the scenes trying to create the best experience for supporters. You would not believe the half of it…It is selfless, and it deserves celebrating. From the stewards, the board, the bar staff, the kit room and everyone in between, you are remarkable.”
I could not agree more, whether we are talking about Jack Miller, Liz Lockie, Jacquie Meechan, Katie Oliver, Brian and Sarah Parsons, Neil the head steward, Adam Robinson, Aaron Nicholson, or the many volunteers, players and fans, past and present. They are remarkable.
For all the money, well-deserved global attention and sporting excellence of the premier league, it is the community and the fans of local football clubs such as Basingstoke Town that make football truly great. Football is more than just a sport; it is a source of civic pride, community identity and economic opportunity, but for too long the governance and financial model of our game has left clubs vulnerable to mismanagement, unscrupulous ownership and, ultimately, financial ruin. A stark example is the case of Basingstoke Town and its much-loved Camrose ground. The Camrose was gifted to the club by Viscount Camrose in the 1940s, and a covenant was placed on the land, restricting its use to football or as a sports ground. For more than 70 years, the Camrose was the heart of our town’s club, and a vital community hub where generations of fans came together to support their team. People of all ages came there to play the sport that so much of our nation holds dear.
The covenant on the ground, which should have guaranteed a sports facility to the town for another three decades at least, was and continues to be blatantly and disgracefully disregarded. In 2016, the then chairman of the club sold the freehold of the Camrose to a company that he owned. Following years of under-investment in the stadium, he eventually evicted the newly formed community club from the Camrose in April 2019. The club was forced to relocate to Winchester City’s grounds, over 20 miles away, causing disruption to not only the men’s first team, but the women’s team, the youth academy and an array of vital community projects. A once iconic stadium that brought pride and opportunities to the town was reduced to a distant memory.
Our town and club have lost a historic football ground. We have lost a large sports and community facility, and those responsible have been able to escape accountability and to profit handsomely from a disgraceful episode in our town’s history. Basingstoke Town has since transitioned to a 100% fan-owned model, but that example is why I am so passionate about this legislation protecting not just fans of EFL clubs, but supporters of non-league teams like Basingstoke Town. I would like these measures to protect clubs at all levels of English football. I would appreciate any information that the Minister could give on how the Government will work with the FA to support and regulate non-league clubs, in order to protect clubs like Basingstoke.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. It is terrible what has happened at Reading due to the ownership. The women’s football team have gone from being in the women’s super league to being in tier 5. Will he join me in supporting women’s football, and in asking the Government for an update on their plan to implement the Carney review on the future of women’s football?
Luke Murphy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her gift of an intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments about women’s football, which is a basic part of Basingstoke Town football club as well.
Stronger governance is vital. We need tougher ownership tests to stop reckless takeovers, better financial oversight to prevent clubs from drowning in debt, and more support for fan-led ownership models. Football belongs to the fans. They pour in their passion, time and money. They deserve a system that protects their clubs and their communities, not one that puts them at risk. The Bill provides that system, and I commend the Government for it; but I want to see just as much attention paid to the grassroots, non-league football, and its fans and volunteers, because as I said, they are what make football truly great.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
As has been mentioned, only one Football League club is represented by a Conservative MP, and that is the mighty Bromley football club. My efforts to bring about a chant of “You’ve got the only Tory” across opposition stands in league two are ongoing, and I will keep the House informed of how well they proceed.
Hayes Lane, the club’s ground since 1938, stands proudly in my constituency. Bromley FC is a football fan’s dream. We have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Earning promotion to the conference south league in 2006, the club was crowned champion eight years later. We climbed the national league, reaching the FA trophy final in 2018 and earning promotion in 2021, but our rise did not stop there. Bromley faced Ryan Reynolds’s Wrexham at Wembley for a second shot at the FA trophy in 2022. It was an amazing day, and one that I remember well. While we may not have had “Deadpool”, we did have Michael Cheek—Cheeky, the Maradona of Bromley—who secured the silverware with the game’s only goal. I love Michael Cheek, and I congratulate him on being named league two player of the year last night; it is well deserved. Last year, a moment 132 years in the making arrived as Bromley was promoted to the English football league for the first time in its history.
Why is this story relevant? Bromley’s football dream was realised thanks to sound management, private investment and raw talent, not a state regulator, and I congratulate Robin Stanton-Gleaves, Mark Hammond—Hammo—and Andy “Woody” Woodman on all that they have done for the club. As a Ravens fan, when I look at Labour’s supposedly independent football regulator, I have to ask whether it would help Bromley FC or aspiring clubs like it, and in its current state, the answer is a resounding no. When the Bill was first proposed, it was proposed with the right intentions. It would protect cherished community clubs from bad owners, and would prevent a breakaway European super league. However, Labour’s regulator is morphing into a meddling, costly political deadweight for English football, because the regulator will be neither independent nor impartial. This is cronyism at its worst.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a football fan. Does he recall hearing any fan group saying, “What we really need is a Labour donor crony regulating the beautiful game”?
Peter Fortune
What fans tell me is that they want the money to move more freely through the sport. I shall say more about that in a moment. The cronyism is what we are concerned about. With political leadership, the risk of mission creep is greater. More state intervention would threaten English football’s independence, and UEFA warns that without independence, English clubs could not compete in European leagues. The Government know that their Bill could torpedo English football, and I wonder whether that is why Ministers refuse to publish UEFA’s letter about it.
The regulator will also cost clubs a small fortune. The levy to pay for the new bureaucracy will cost them nearly £100 million, and the regulatory burden will cost them nearly £35 million more, hurting the smallest clubs, such as Bromley, that do not have the staff to handle yet more red tape. For clubs it means higher taxes, more paperwork, and staff working on state demands, rather than football. For fans it will inevitably mean higher ticket prices, especially in view of the new jobs tax that Labour has instigated, and employment red tape. We should be focusing on getting money to the league clubs, not tying their hands with bureaucracy. That is what the clubs need.
Football is about risks and aspirations. Teams win or lose, are promoted or relegated. This is not banking; it is football. While I recognise that smaller clubs need support, a partisan regulator is not the answer. English football’s independence is worth protecting.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Let me begin by declaring my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I think most of us have agreed today that football has a governance problem. Just last Friday, I attended a meeting with Sheffield Members of Parliament and fans of Sheffield Wednesday—fans who are desperate for their owner to sell their club, so that we can share the lessons from Reading football club. We are well aware of the problems of bad ownership at Reading; its stadium is in my constituency. Our club is on the brink of expulsion from the English football league, after its absent owner was disqualified by the EFL more than a month ago. Reading and Sheffield Wednesday are the tip of the iceberg. As we have heard during the debate, and as we have seen over the last few years, there have been crises at Wigan, Derby, Portsmouth, Bury, Bolton, Macclesfield, Southend and beyond. Football definitely has a governance problem. I am heartened that this Labour Government are serious about fixing it, although sadly the same cannot be said for all parties in the House.
It is shameful that the Conservative party, which initially backed the Bill, has spent the past few months delaying its progress. In those months, many Members, including me, have spent our time fighting for the future of our local clubs. Every day is another day on which Reading fans are left in the dark, another day when Reading staff and local businesses are left waiting for late wage payments. I ask Conservative Members: how much longer would you like us to wait? The shadow Secretary of State likes to talk about business and the economic case. I ask him this: when the average club in the championship spends more than 100% of its revenues on wages, and when, according to the non-governmental organisation Fair Game, more than 50 of the top 86 clubs in the country are technically insolvent, with liabilities exceeding their assets, is this a successful market? Is it a functioning market? I would argue that that is not just unfair, but financially unsustainable. As we heard from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), self-regulation has not worked, so we need to find a system that works.
Joe Robertson
Has the hon. Lady not received a payment of £8,000 from the man whom her own Government want to install as an independent chair of an independent regulator? Does she not accept that that is a major compromise of the independence of that chosen nominee?
Yuan Yang
I have already declared my interest, and I do not agree with that intervention. It is for us in this Chamber to decide whether we want a regulator, and whether we want the Bill to be passed. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she believes that any regulator would be a waste of resources. I presume that that means that her party believes that football does not need regulation. It is for the Select Committee—previously chaired by the hon. Member for Gosport, who, in her speech, seemed to support the idea of independent regulation—to scrutinise the appointment of regulators.
Reading is one of the oldest clubs in England. It once prided itself on good governance, and was known for “the Reading way”. Since the current owners took over, we have seen four winding-up petitions and five points deductions. Sadly, the EFL, which tries to support and intervene, has been unable to effect change for our club because it lacks sufficient regulatory powers. This is where the new ownership test, as well as the new licensing regime proposed in the Bill, would have been so helpful. Reading’s crisis was avoidable, and if we had a strong, independent football regulator, we could start to fix football’s governance problems.
Mr Quigley
As a Sheffield Wednesday fan, I understand the financial pain that clubs experience. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition do not actually know why they are objecting to the Bill?
Yuan Yang
I feel that I have seen a lot of fancy footwork from the Opposition that probably belongs on the pitch.
We need to build a football system that is fair, transparent and sustainable. That is why I strongly welcome the Bill, and in particular the creation of an independent football regulator. I also strongly support the new owners and directors test, but let me be clear: this regulator must have real teeth. As well as a light touch, it must have the right touch. I hope that, as well as having the power to disqualify bad owners, it will also have the power to enforce that disqualification, and that the Bill, by being able to force the sale of shares or through other interventions, can ensure that the regulation bites.
I am confident that this Bill will support clubs around the country. As I said in my Westminster Hall debate, we need a regulator that passes the Reading test, so that fans of other clubs do not have to go through what we have had to endure. I have spoken to the Sports Minister and the Secretary of State a number of times about Reading, and I am grateful that we share a vision of what English football could be—although I am sure the Sports Minister will disagree with my particular vision that Reading deserve to defeat Barnsley this weekend in order to reach the play-offs. I hope that Ministers will, in theory, support a strengthening of the ownership test by the time this Bill leaves the House.
Olivia Bailey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent campaigning on this issue. Does she agree that Reading football club is at the heart of the community in Tilehurst—in my constituency—and in her constituency? We have to act to protect clubs like Reading. Does she agree that in their obfuscation on this legislation, the Conservatives are letting down fans of Reading football club?
Yuan Yang
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservative party is letting down many Reading fans, not just in our constituencies but in many neighbouring constituencies, as well as fans across the country.
This matters because Reading are not just a club but a community institution. They are a source of pride, opportunity and identity, which I am heartened that many thousands of fans have come together over the current crisis to try to save. Over 10,000 fans have signed my petition to launch an inquiry into the governance at Reading, and over 30 Members of Parliament belonging to various parties spoke in the Westminster Hall debate that I led, on the topic of financial sustainability in football. That demonstrates how much football clubs mean to people, but unless we act to change how football is governed and run, fix the distribution model, rein in reckless spending and stop absent owners hiding from fans, we will keep losing community clubs up and down the country.
Football deserves better, fans deserve better, and with this Bill we have a once-in-a-generation chance to get it right.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my membership of the football APPG and the women’s football APPG, which both exist to safeguard and improve the game that we love. I have also attended various briefings by interested organisations, such as Fair Game.
It is clear that there is wide support for the principle of establishing a regulator for football. It was in the Conservatives’ manifesto, and the Labour Government are delivering their own manifesto commitment, but the Bill is also welcomed by the EFL and the Football Supporters’ Association. There is even some support from the Premier League, so I am confident that it will pass its Second Reading later. Once enacted, it will help us to sustain our truly national game.
There are over 14 million grassroots players, including me—still—and over 40,000 association football clubs. Football brings people together on a weekly basis to celebrate, to commiserate and to enjoy the unfolding drama that only sport can deliver. Football is also crucial to our local economies and local identities, but too many clubs are facing uncertain times, which is why I support the Bill’s focus on financial sustainability, the ownership of clubs and fan engagement. Had these areas of focus already been realised, my nearest EFL club, Reading FC, would not be in the situation in which they currently find themselves. That is why this Bill is needed. We cannot let something of so much social and economic value be unregulated, and this Bill can improve the connection between fans and clubs, and protect their heritage.
The first half of this Bill’s legislative journey has now been completed. Although the Government did not formally accept any Opposition amendments from the other place, the Bill has been improved. I welcome the amendments that have been made, including the requirement that board members and expert panel members must declare their interests, greater inclusion of players and fans, the introduction of a social responsibility duty, and the inclusion of a club’s contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of its local communities.
Football clubs must be held to account. Selling off assets such as car parks and training grounds, transferring ownership of the stadium or even selling the trophy cabinet cannot be allowed to happen.
Mr Dillon
A Tottenham fan would be able to sell the dust.
Although football clubs are owned by wealthy individuals or investment groups, they belong to their communities. Financial fair play has created unintended consequences such as selling home-grown players to get greater profit, or selling off a women’s team as an accounting trick. As the legislation progresses, we must ensure that it does not do the same.
One area where there has been criticism of the Bill is the unintended consequence of increasing ticket prices. That was raised in the other place, and I note that the reasoned amendment, which would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, also raises this issue. My team, Manchester United, who were joined by Liverpool as 20-time league champions yesterday, have already increased ticket prices, without consulting the fans, due to the level of debt. That debt has not strengthened the club, the fans did not ask for it, and it has only benefited the owners.
The main focus of the Bill is to ensure the financial sustainability of the English game, so with less debt and more money going through the football pyramid, I do not hold the view that the regulatory burden will increase ticket prices, and paragraph 4(2)(c) of schedule 4 to the Bill gives fans a legal right to be engaged on ticket pricing. I support the principle of the Bill, but I want to explore how we can work with football clubs on fairer dynamic pricing, concessionary ticket pricing and the cost for away fans, alongside how fans can own a meaningful stake in their clubs.
Finally, I accept that the women’s game is not covered by the legislation, but the Secretary of State has the power to bring it into the new regulatory regime. In Committee, I will seek more concrete commitments on what trigger is needed for that to happen, as the financial success or otherwise of the men’s game is already impacting on women and girls’ ability to play organised football, and I will ask colleagues to explore these six areas.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
In Derby, our football club is not just a team; it is at the heart of our community, uniting us across generations. Derby and Derby County have a rich footballing heritage, heroes to inspire us and a bright future ahead, but the future has not always looked so bright. In 2021, we entered administration. Fans were left on a constant cliffhanger as administration negotiations dragged on and offered little clarity. We were celebrating that the club had been bought one day, only to find that the promised funds had not arrived the next. Thankfully, local man and fan David Clowes stepped up to ensure that generations of fans to come will be able to enjoy a Saturday afternoon at Pride Park. As he has said,
“We would never want to see another club and its fans suffer in the way Derby did both before and during the period of administration. Anything that can prevent that, including this Bill, should be supported and applauded.”
Up and down the country, from Birmingham to Burnley, fans are rightly proud of their clubs. Despite that fan base, it is not just Derby County facing financial peril: EFL clubs across the country will lose around £450 million this season. This financial instability undermines the clubs that unite our communities, risking the matchday magic for fans. That is why I welcome the Government’s plan to introduce an independent football regulator through this strengthened Bill. It is right that clubs are required to stick to tough financial regulations, and that the independent football regulator will ensure a fair distribution of revenue. Having experienced Derby County’s separation from its stadium, I know it is right that clubs will have to seek approval to sell or relocate from their home ground. This Government recognise that a stadium, such as Pride Park in Derby, is a huge asset to fans.
When interviewed on the opening day of his first season as chairman, David Clowes was asked what he wanted Derby County to stand for. His response was “stability, integrity and progress”, which is exactly what the Bill stands for: stability, integrity and progress, to preserve and protect the game we all love.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As it has for so many Members across the House, football has given me some unforgettable moments. I grew up listening to the scores on Saturday afternoons with my dad, and I can still remember the pride I felt when my son had the opportunity to be a mascot at Stamford Bridge and we spotted him on “Match of the Day”. Football gives us joy, community and a feeling that we are part of something bigger than ourselves. That same spirit, connection, pride and sense of belonging is exactly what my constituents feel when they go to watch the Eastleigh Spitfires at the Silverlake stadium or away—and I am pleased to say that we drew with Woking on Saturday.
Football clubs are part of the cultural DNA of our towns and cities, with rich heritage built by generations of fans who turn up for every match—in the cold, in the rain—all for love of the beautiful game. This Bill is long overdue to put the necessary guardrails in place to protect our local clubs and the communities that support them. What is football without stories such as Leicester City’s premier league win or Wrexham’s remarkable rise? Teams, no matter how small—with or without the support of Hollywood A-listers—should be able to have the same opportunity to compete. That is why I support measures to empower the independent regulator to block teams from joining a breakaway super league, which would tear the heart out of English football.
Currently, 95% of the £3.2 billion annual broadcast revenue stays with the top 26 clubs—premier league sides and those receiving parachute payments. While the Bill takes steps to address some of these issues, it unfortunately leaves the national league and grassroots football outside the scope of the proposed regulator. The regulator will only require clubs to consider the interests of their own fans and members, not the long-term health or sustainability of the entire pyramid. This is a missed opportunity that I hope the Government will address as the Bill progresses.
We must also recognise the need to strengthen the owners and directors tests by including clear human rights checks. A repressive regime should not be allowed to buy its way into our national game, using English football to sportswash its image simply because it offers the highest price. That is why I hope the Government will strengthen the Bill by embedding a human rights test into the regulations for owners and directors.
This Bill must strike a balance in protecting the success of our globally admired game while ensuring fairness, access and sustainability across the pyramid. Recently, I visited the Crescent primary school in my constituency, and I was blown away by the passion and commitment of the school staff in encouraging girls as well as boys to play football. It was a powerful reminder of what football can offer future generations when access, inclusion and opportunity are at its core. Football belongs to the fans, the communities and the kids kicking a ball about at school or in a local park. They have made this game what it is, and we owe it to them to get it right.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I will start by quoting this historic football match commentary:
“It’s Grimsby giving it away in a very dangerous part of the pitch, for the first time the visitors becoming the architects of their own downfall, it’s tucked in by the substitute Luther Wildin and Stevenage you sense are going up today!”
With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), that was the moment on 3 May 2023 when the Mighty Boro, Stevenage FC, scored the final goal in a match that sealed their promotion to the EFL league one, where they remain today. Our club, whose colours I am wearing, is part of the lifeblood of the town not just on the pitch, but off it, with the incredible work they do in the community. It is the exemplar of a local football club being a truly community asset.
I speak in favour of the Bill because it is not just about much-needed regulation, but about safeguarding the future of our national sport, ensuring financial stability for clubs across the pyramid and making sure our fans—the people who spend their money, week in and week out, to follow their team across the country—are given a real say in how their clubs are run.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is telling a very similar story to that of my local club, Leyton Orient. Its fans warmly welcomed the reinvestment from David Gandler, building on the leadership of the chairman, Nigel Travis, who has delivered sustainable growth, promotion to league one, clear championship ambitions and a new stadium, and has strengthened the community with up to £6.7 million in social value. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that all ownership transitions should be like this and should follow this model of fan engagement?
Kevin Bonavia
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We both represent constituencies with clubs that are good examples of what can be done, but our duty here is to safeguard our clubs and all clubs in this country from future failure. They are not businesses; as I have said, they are community assets.
Last season, 23.7 million people attended matches in EFL competitions, demonstrating the profound connection between these clubs and their local communities. It is not just on the pitch that clubs are contributing to their communities. In the same season, EFL clubs contributed over £1.2 billion of social value through their community programmes, with my local club’s community arm, the Stevenage FC Foundation, alone generating £10.7 million of social value in my constituency and the wider area. In that timeframe, the foundation also delivered 185 training sessions per week, engaging over 15,000 unique participants annually and delivering over 9,000 hours of activity. That is an incredible feat.
However, the financial stability of all clubs across the football pyramid is in a precarious place, with EFL clubs expected to lose around £450 million this season alone. Alongside this, the financial disparity between the premier league and the EFL is stark. In the 2022-23 season, 20 premier league and five EFL clubs with parachute payments received 92% of the distributable revenues, while the remaining 67 professional clubs shared just 8%. This imbalance undermines the systemic sustainability of English football, and I am glad that this Bill proposes change so that a 75%-25% split of combined media revenues between the premier league and the EFL will become the new normal and provide much-needed financial support to EFL clubs.
It is clear that the financial situation in which we find ourselves across the pyramid is untenable, and this has directly led to financial crises in clubs across England. It is beyond belief that the Conservative party, which sat on its hands for most of the past 14 years, claimed in its manifesto that it wanted an independent football regulator, so why on earth do we not have cross-party consensus on this principle?
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Quite simply, because it is no longer independent.
Kevin Bonavia
The hon. Member will know that the Bill has been improved to make the independent regulator more independent, for example—and there are plenty of examples of improvements in the Bill—by giving the regulator a greater ability to actually regulate the game. Conservative Front Benchers say they support independence and say they want regulation, but many of its Members do not like regulation at all. This is not a party that believes in protecting the national game; it is a party that wants to play party political football with something that should have cross-party consensus.
Alongside the financial stability that this Bill will bring to our clubs, we need to respect fans’ involvement in these community assets, so I want to pay tribute to all the clubs that already engage in good faith with their fans. I am proud of the work that Stevenage have done to involve fan representation in their yearly engagement plan, and for the initiatives of other clubs, such as Blackpool, whose directors I chatted with at the match with Stevenage last week. They explained how they had had a pint with Tangerine fans from across the country to hear their views on how the club should be run. That said, they did get a bit lucky at our place, although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) would agree with me that both our clubs have great foundations and trusts that support their fans.
I am also pleased that the amendments the Government have made to the Bill during its passage in the other place actually do strengthen that independence, as I said to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). Under this Bill, poor and reckless behaviour that ignores local fan communities will not be tolerated by the regulator. This Bill provides the safety net that clubs need to be financially secure and to be able to deliver for their local communities for a long time to come. Let us all support this Bill, and therefore support our fantastic football clubs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Lengthy interventions are eating into time, so the time limit is now four minutes.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I declare an interest as a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town.
Other Members have referred to the success of the premier league and the fact that the EFL is one of the best attended in Europe. Football, we should take it as read, is a success story. I want to focus on the risks posed to the game by the Bill and regulation. Indeed, even the Government concede that the new regime and distribution provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented. The objectives of sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions, safeguarding heritage and strengthening engagement are supported by fans, but much of that is already happening under the existing rules of the FA, the Premier League and the EFL.
My concern—the one I expressed in the previous Parliament when we debated a similar Bill—is that it will lead to overreach and over-regulation. We have heard bids already from across other parts of the House to load burdens on football, including protecting car parks. The Prime Minister has said on regulation:
“the key test…Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to…unlock investment?”
Yet he is creating a new regulator that will take £100 million out of the game, including for smaller clubs, and regulatory scope and costs will inexorably increase. The task of the regulator is already vast. It will have to approve business plans for 116 clubs as part of licensing. Applying such banking-style regulation to a sport is inappropriate.
The provisions on revenues of course attract a lot of attention. Let us be clear here: the Government are taking powers through the backstop to mandate the division of commercial revenues. These are unprecedented powers that will cause significant regulatory and investment uncertainty. There is a voluntary agreement at the moment, which is essential to the health of the game and to get funds flowing through the pyramid. The backstop, which is meant to be a last resort, is now the frontstop. The EFL has been very clear that it is waiting for the provisions to come into force and it will not agree to anything until then. The Government have made the situation worse by including the parachute payments, which will prevent clubs that want to invest when they get promoted and take a risk so they can compete from doing so, which will weaken the competitiveness of the game.
Then there is the untried binding final offer arbitration model. Rather than considering the proposals put forward by the Premier League and EFL to determine which is the best approach—it may be a compromise between the two—we have a Russian roulette approach where the regulator has to pick one or the other. Lord Birt put forward an amendment in the other place to introduce an approach based on commercial arbitration instead of that model, which incentivises gaming. The Secretary of State had some warm words for what Lord Birt had done in the other place. I would be grateful if the Minister, in winding up, can clarify whether the Government are still talking to Lord Birt and other legal experts in the other place, with the intention of changing the flawed backstop model.
To conclude, the Bill would introduce unprecedented regulation of our national game. There are clear risks, through excessive regulation the Bill will introduce, to the very elements that make football the great success it is. That is why I will be opposing the Bill. The Government and the Prime Minister will be rightly held responsible if they get it wrong and undermine football.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
We are here to discuss football, an unmatched force of pride and passion across all corners of the country, from Barnet to Brighton and York City to Yeovil. That is why the Labour Government are introducing an independent football regulator.
Today, I am speaking in this debate with a somewhat unique perspective: as a former national regulator at the Financial Conduct Authority, but also as an ordinary person who enjoys watching my local team. I was involved in the FCA’s development of strategy. It moved from what is called a rules-based approach to an outcomes-based approach. In my view, the IFR should adopt a similar approach, based on focusing on what good looks like for football governance and community benefit. Its core goal must be about putting fans at the heart of the game.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this important matter. Fans are the heart and soul of our football clubs. At Ebbsfleet United football ground, the Fleet Supporters’ Trust is absolutely cracking in that space. Does he agree with me that fans will respect transparency, civility and a voice in the game they love?
Mr Charters
I certainly do, and that should be the goal of the regulator. Fan engagement is great at York City, but it is not a given elsewhere. That is why the IFR should have a fan advisory board of its own feeding back on its own effectiveness, just as I saw at the FCA with its advisory panels.
Moving on, there is no greater problem in football that needs fixing than ticket pricing and I think the football regulator should look at it in future. This is all about giving back to the ordinary working people of this country: the grafters who pay their taxes, working hard all week, just waiting for those 90 minutes on a Saturday. Some championship clubs charged away fans £45 this season, and some league two sides will be charging over £30 a ticket next season. York could be playing in that league next season and it is just not on, so in my view the IFR should have a greater role in relation to pricing.
Mr Charters
I am going to make some progress and allow other Members to speak.
Let us roll out an away ticket cap across the EFL and national league, like the one that already exists in the premier league at £30. That is up for review this year. It should not only be kept, but expanded across all divisions as a ceiling, not a target for clubs. I understand the careful balance to be struck on the regulators’ remit, but with prices climbing and no controls we must do something before it is too late.
The regulator will cover men’s football, but we should also consider how revenue could be shared to boost women’s football and foundation clubs. Perhaps that should be considered too. The IFR will cover the top five divisions, recognising the great progress the national league has made in recent years. Take Wrexham, who won a third successive promotion, to the championship, over the weekend. The problem, though, is the cap on promotion places, with only two teams going up this season from the national league. There has been a debate for some time about introducing a third promotion spot. In my view, with the IFR, now is the right time. I should declare an interest as York City would be all but promoted by now. This is about opening our wonderful pyramid up, not closing off competition.
If I may, I will finish by sharing a further idea about English football. It is 40 years since alcohol was banned in view of the pitch. Perhaps it is time for a modern approach to a modern game. The days of hooliganism are gone. Fans of other sports can drink in the stands, but football fans cannot. Limited trials of designated drinking zones in view of the pitch could be an interesting idea. For me, we should always keep family areas free of that, but let us give fans who want to drink in the stands the chance to do so responsibly, or at least let us have a conversation about it.
To conclude, fan engagement has to be at the heart of the reinvigoration of English football. This moment should kick-start a broader conversation about what fans want. It is this Labour Government leading the charge for the hard-working fans of this country. Today is about protecting the fans to inspire the generations of tomorrow and to protect the sport we all love.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Unlike many Members of this House, I can remember a time when football was in the shadows. Overwhelmed by hooliganism, it was looked down on, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) noted. Like all across the House and the country, I am delighted at how football has changed. As a lifelong Crystal Palace fan, much to my Wimbledon constituents’ shame, I have followed my team across the country—not to mention gloriously up the road at Wembley this weekend, in the company of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), another fellow Eagle—and have seen how a spectator sport once renowned for mindless violence and prejudice has transformed into one that champions inclusivity.
The game I love is no longer marginalised; it is now celebrated and supported by people from all backgrounds. It holds a central place in our national identity, while the growth and success of the women’s game has been particularly inspiring and is critical to the sport’s overall development. I look forward to Crystal Palace Women regaining their place in the super league next season.
As I said in my maiden speech, I welcome the Bill. It is vital to introduce a regulator that can ensure the professional game is sustainable and puts those most important to its success—namely, the fans—at its core, despite the contempt of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and the bizarre volte-face from the official Opposition.
As we have heard, the premier league has unrivalled global reach, but in celebrating its international reach and national popularity, we must not forget football’s origins. Football clubs are not assets to be bought and sold like superyachts, but the lifeblood of communities. My Wimbledon constituents understand better than most what happens when clubs are treated as mere assets, with the purchase of what became nothing more than a commercial franchise when the original Wimbledon FC moved to Milton Keynes—adopting the still controversial name of MK Dons—remaining a deeply traumatic event for many of my constituents. Despite opposition from the FA and the Football League, Wimbledon FC was stolen from the fans and ripped from our community. Thankfully, AFC Wimbledon rose from the ashes of the MK Dons debacle and now serves as an inspiration to many. As a majority fan-owned club, they are rightly admired. Their success also demonstrates that clubs can thrive when fans are in control.
In Wimbledon, we are fortunate to have two professional clubs that are deeply involved in the community. Fulham FC, whose training ground is in my constituency, undertakes significant community work partnering with local schools, community groups and disability charities, while AFC Wimbledon embodies this community spirit even more fervently. When the covid-19 pandemic began, three AFC Wimbledon fans established the Dons local action group to help to combat the impacts of poverty in our community. Last year, it distributed almost £1 million-worth of food to the poorest in Wimbledon.
The sustainability of our football clubs is crucial, but we must be cautious about stifling ambition. A rigid regulatory framework could prevent clubs, especially those from smaller leagues, from making their way up the pyramid as swiftly as we have seen in the past; Fulham FC, for example, experienced a meteoric rise from the fourth tier to the premier league in just six years. Along with other clubs, Fulham have raised concerns that excessive financial constraints could stifle the ambition of smaller clubs that aspire to emulate their success. We must strike the right balance, ensuring that reckless behaviour is curtailed while allowing clubs the freedom to chase success in a responsible, sustainable way.
I finish by saying that I support this Bill and that I am so surprised by the Tory volte-face—it makes no sense.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
This evening’s debate demonstrates to all of us, regardless of our opinion on the Bill, just how important our football clubs are to our communities. The sense of pride with which we have all spoken this evening is, I think, a tribute to all our clubs.
Sadly, my remarks tonight are tinged slightly with sadness. On Saturday, Carlisle United confirmed their relegation to the national league, losing 3-2 to Cheltenham. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) is not currently in his place, because I was going to congratulate him—through gritted teeth—on his team’s win.
My spirits are, however, somewhat restored by the provisions of this Bill—namely those to improve the financial stability of our football clubs, protect our clubs’ important cultural heritage and assets, and ensure that they engage with fans on matters important to them. I am pleased to say that on those three counts at least, Carlisle United are on good form.
Thanks to the Piatak family, who bought Carlisle United just 18 months ago, the club’s financial position has vastly improved. The new owners not only bought the historic debt but have invested millions in Brunton Park, creating new fan facilities including an excellent fan zone that befits loyal Blues fans. The owners have also agreed terms with Cumberland council to develop a new training ground adjacent to the city’s athletic facilities.
The board is also conscious of Carlisle United’s important cultural heritage. Last year, to mark the club’s 120th anniversary, a special exhibition was created at our city’s Tullie House museum, featuring among the exhibits Jimmy Glass’s blessed boots—if you don’t know, you should look it up. Fan engagement is also strong, with open forums, community involvement and an active commitment to diversity and inclusion. This was recognised last August, when the club was ranked second in English football for fan engagement by Think Fan Engagement. Therefore, although I might be saddened by Carlisle’s relegation, I am confident that the club’s foundations are stronger than ever. Not all clubs can say that, though, and that is why this Bill is required.
I do not need to tell this House that our football clubs are more than just clubs; they are the lifeblood of our communities, bringing us together, giving us moments of collective joy and sorrow and engendering local pride. That is why I am glad we are finally stepping in to give football fans up and down the country some peace of mind about the future of their clubs. Although Carlisle might be in the national league next year, I know the club is in good hands and I am reassured that the Bill will keep other clubs safe, too. That is how it should be. As former Carlisle manager the great Bill Shankly once said,
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death…I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I broadly agree with the Bill, but I hope you will kindly indulge me this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially as my team, Leicester City, which has languished near the bottom of the premiership, is now confirmed relegated to the championship. Relegation is not a new experience for Leicester City fans. What is new, however, and what made this season hard to bear, was the absence of fight and passion and the complete lack of competitive edge, which brings me to the heart of my remarks today.
Those of us who have long admired the beautiful game will remember why English football captured the imagination of the world. It was not merely a technical exercise; it was a game of passion, grit, and blood and thunder. Teams would throw the kitchen sink at the opposition to get a goal, and games were contested with courage as much as skill. Within the fabric of the sport lived characters, mavericks and personalities who made the game more than just a business—they made it a spectacle.
Football today is different. While there have been many improvements, as has been mentioned by other Members, it is now is a highly technical game. Players are physical specimens, sculpted by science. There is widespread feeling that character is being coached out of our players, leaving behind robotic individuals tasked with executing tactical blueprints. If football on the pitch is already at risk of losing its fire to rigidity and over-formulation, will regulation off the pitch risk extinguishing the spirit of competition entirely?
Let me speak from a personal experience. Under the late Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha—a man we still sing about from the terraces; a man who dared to dream—Leicester were promoted from league one to the championship and, within six years, were crowned premier league champions in perhaps the greatest miracle in sporting history. How did that happen? It was by taking certain risks. One such risk was spending £1 million on a non-league player in his mid-20s—an absolutely unheard of move at the time, and an absolute gamble for a club of our size. That player, of course, was Jamie Vardy, who went on to break records, represent his country and inspire an entire generation. As Jamie now announces his departure after 13 magnificent years, I will take this opportunity to say: Jamie, you are the GOAT—thank you for everything you have done for us.
Leicester City’s success gave hope to every so-called smaller club, showing that ambition, risk taking and dreaming could defy the odds—the essence of competitive sport. That is why some of us are concerned about this Bill. Will regulation inadvertently consign clubs like Leicester to knowing their place and simply participating, rather than competing? Will it entrench a system where a few are dominant and others merely survive? Of course, reforms are necessary; we must improve fan engagement, protect club heritage, stop breakaway leagues and insist on proper conscientious ownership. However, we must not create a sterile landscape where ambition is stifled and dreams are confined to the past.
I seek reassurance on a couple of points. Will the funding from this legislation be channelled properly into grassroots clubs—the lifeblood of our national game? Will the financial distribution address, rather than exacerbate, the widening gap between the premier league and the lower divisions, particularly regarding parachute payments? Will the arbitration process be fair, promoting compromise rather than extreme outcomes? Lastly, will club reviews be targeted and proportionate, instead of Ofsted-style tick-box exercises?
We invented the beautiful game and shared it with the world. It is played in every gully, alley and favela across the globe—
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
When Christine Seddon sat down with me and the Secretary of State in Blackpool last year, she spoke with the quiet, fierce pride of someone who had fought for her club and won. Christine is a third-generation Blackpool FC fan, and as chair of the Blackpool Supporters Trust she helped lead a movement that brought integrity, pride and professionalism back to a club on its knees. She told us that the situation in Blackpool was unique, and she hoped that it would stay that way. She said:
“To have to politicise football fans is not something we ever wanted,”
but after being let down so badly, it was felt there was no choice. Christine’s words have stayed with me.
Imagine having to go head-to-head with the very club your family supported for generations because you love it too much to watch it being recklessly destroyed. That was the reality at Bloomfield Road. After years of mismanagement and failure to reinvest significant earnings, and a complete disregard for supporters, Blackpool fans took matters into their own hands and a four-year boycott, led with the courage and unity of the Blackpool Supporters Trust, restored pride in our club and gave hope to fans everywhere. Christine told us that if we had said to her five years ago that a football governance Bill was coming, she would not have believed it—it would have been the answer to her prayers. Now we must get it right.
The Bill must give fans like Christine, groups like the Blackpool Supporters Trust and millions of fans across the country the voice they have earned through their loyalty and sacrifice, and by parting with their hard-earned cash to support their clubs through every high and low. Since its founding in 1887, Blackpool football club has been a constant in our community, but, like so many others, we have seen a growing disconnect between those who own our clubs and those who make them matter—the fans. Fans are the beating heart of local football. They turn up rain or shine—there is a lot of rain in Blackpool—win or lose, but too often they have been let down and ignored.
Nowhere was the need for change more powerfully demonstrated than at Bloomfield Road in 2015. Blackpool’s story is not just about survival; it is about what fans can achieve when they are respected, heard and empowered. That is why in 2018 the Blackpool Supporters Trust became one of the first fan organisations to formally petition Parliament for an independent football regulator. It saw what was coming and acted. Today, with this Bill, we are answering that call. It will tackle rogue and incompetent owners and start to rebalance power between the boardrooms and the stands. It will ensure that no club—not Blackpool, not Bury, not Reading and not Macclesfield—is ever again allowed to fall into crisis because of rules.
The premier league is a phenomenal British success story, watched and envied across the world. Nobody in the House seeks to punish its success, but even the greatest leagues cannot stand without strong foundations. When 95% of the £3.2 billion of annual broadcast revenue remains with just 26 clubs at the top, the case for fairer distribution to sustain the whole pyramid becomes impossible to ignore. Protecting the pyramid is an investment in the future of our national game. That is why the Government’s approach, in giving the regulator targeted backstop powers to intervene as a last resort, is the right one.
Christine also reminds us of something else—that fans are not just spectators, but a massive untapped resource of knowledge, passion and experience that clubs would do well to harness. This weekend, Blackpool will play their last home game of the season. Sadly, they have fallen short of their promotion hopes, but the stands will be full because loyal fans will turn up and do as they always do: give unwavering support to a team who have shown professionalism, determination and ambition for our club. This is the Bill for them, and for every supporter who never gave up.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I declare my interest as an Aston Villa season ticket holder and therefore speak as somebody experienced in the highs and lows of football. I refer not to the FA cup semi-final on Saturday but to the moment in 2018 when Villa almost went bust under Dr Tony Xia.
To own a football club is to respect one’s responsibility as a custodian of an important community institution. That is something, despite some of the speeches we have heard, that most owners respect. We cannot debate the Bill without acknowledging the extraordinary success of English football, because the premier league is the greatest show on earth. It is broadcast to 189 different countries, and nearly 2 billion people follow the league weekly. The revenues that football accrues are invested not only in top talent but through the divisions and in grassroots facilities overseen by the excellent Football Foundation. The New Croft in my constituency, for example, is home to Haverhill Rovers, who just became champions of the Thurlow Nunn league first division north, and incredible all-weather pitches that host more than 50 teams of different ages and abilities.
What is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix? The Government say that the new regulator will protect and promote the sustainability of English football. The examples given to justify regulation are Bury and Macclesfield Town among others, but the experience of those clubs shows the power of community and supporter activism. Bury was rescued by a supporters’ group, and Macclesfield by a local businessman. Both are going concerns today.
Lisa Nandy
I gently point out that Bury FC were allowed to collapse. They were expelled from the league and they lost their football share. I know acutely from my own family experience that supporters continued to gather at the gates every Saturday because of that drumbeat of a ritual that had meant so much to them and their families. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about community, so surely he agrees that that can never be allowed to happen again.
Nick Timothy
Of course, I agree that Bury was a very sad incident. The right hon. Lady mentioned 60 clubs, I think, that had gone into administration. My point is that I am not aware that any of them collapsed to the extent that they are not going concerns or not participating in league or non-league football. We know from the examples of Bury, Macclesfield and AFC Wimbledon that it is possible for clubs to come back. Supporter activism is not the only solution.
Nick Timothy
I will happily give way to the hon. Member. Perhaps he can name one club of the 60 who are no longer live, and no longer participating in competitive sport.
Peter Swallow
I am genuinely astonished. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that a football team can be stripped to its very bones, and can limp along, barely alive but still being called a football team, and that should be good enough for fans. Is he genuinely suggesting that we should not have any more hope or ambition for the community clubs that make our towns?
Nick Timothy
What the hon. Gentleman just said about Bury football club is rather insulting to the fans who have kept it going. Of course it is a football club. Supporter activism is not the only solution when finances go wrong. When Villa were in trouble, we were quickly bought out by new owners. Such is the draw of English football that new owners are almost always ready to step in and invest. Even Birmingham City managed to find new owners two years ago.
We are told that we need a regulator to stop travesties such as the European super league, but again that is wrong. Those English clubs that were tempted by the super league backed off as soon as supporters made their views plain. The real motivation for the super league was European envy of the premier league, but we risk the strength of that league with this proposal.
We are also told that we need a regulator because football finances are unsustainable. Everyone knows of the issues caused by the leveraged buy-out of Manchester United by the Glazer family. There is action that the sport can take to prevent such cases, but debt itself is not necessarily a problem. Spurs have borrowed to invest in their new stadium, for example, and many owners are willing to invest more in their teams but have been blocked by financial fair play rules. Those rules demonstrate why regulating football in this way is such a risk. They have protected the most established clubs from challenge, prevented teams from building on their success through investment, and caused all sorts of perverse decision making.
Premier league teams are selling promising young players because they represent pure profit in the financial fair play system. Players are signed on long-term contracts to amortise the cost. Some clubs have sold their grounds to comply with the regulations. Chelsea sold their women’s team to a company belonging to their owners for an inflated sum of £200 million, just to get around the rules. It is not difficult to see how a football regulator would lead to similar perverse outcomes and a loss in the competitiveness of English teams.
Just today, we have heard calls from parliamentarians to extend the role of the regulator. We can imagine interventions on ticket prices, kit sales and carbon footprints, and perhaps quotas for English players, wage equality between men’s and women’s teams, the distribution of revenues, restrictions on heading the ball, and diversity mandates for youth schemes and the appointment of coaches. I heard something said about human rights checks.
Football does not need this regulator. The vast revenues of the premier league and their distribution, and the extraordinary continuity of almost every professional club in the country, show that the sport is balancing commerce and community well. Our clubs are performing in a tough international market and the most competitive of leagues and cups, and they are surviving and thriving as vital community institutions. When it is not even clear what the problem is that we are trying to fix, why would we risk something that is so cherished by so many?
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I would first like to thank the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), for bringing the Bill before the House today. I have it written down here somewhere that I should thank the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for gallantly coming forward on this issue before the election, when he supported the Bill, but I am flabbergasted; to think that I came in here this afternoon to thank him, when he has changed his mind completely! What will Dame Tracey Crouch be thinking, watching this on her television? She will be utterly ashamed, appalled and disgusted. She did an incredible amount of work to bring this Bill to the Chamber. She spoke to the Football Supporters Association and to every organisation she could to try to get to people’s true feelings in her work on the Football Governance Bill.
I would love the right hon. Member for Daventry to explain what he said about this chap who is being appointed as regulator. The Conservatives want to kill the Bill because of that. That is absolute nonsense, man, and the Tories and the Government understand that. They just say what they do for the sake of opposing a fantastic Bill.
Stuart Andrew
Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that across all sports, political interference is frowned on, and has consequences for teams across the nation. Surely he agrees that the independence of the regulator is paramount.
Ian Lavery
I think I agree with that, but from what I have heard from my hon. and right hon. Friends, the proposed independent regulator was on a list that they received from the Tory Government. This bloke who everyone on the Tory Benches has hammered was on a list proposed by the Tories—
Ian Lavery
Of course he was. He was on the list, and there were other people on the list who were Tory donors. This fantastic Bill, which will give a lot of comfort to football supporters, is being opposed by the official Opposition because of one individual being appointed. He is obviously the best man for the job. The way I measure it is this: the louder the Tories scream and the more opposition they give to anything we say, the better it is, so I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. The louder he shouts, the better. This was the best the Labour Government could do. Let us hope that this individual is welcomed with open arms. He has a hell of a job to do to make sure that football supporters in this country are actually listened to—and it is the football supporters’ game.
Not so very many years ago, the rich and the elite tried to steal the working man’s game in Europe. They tried to take it abroad, without any consultation with the fans who pay for season tickets. Football supporters absolutely love the clubs, and they are greatly insulted by the rich and the elite who are trying to take away their traditions, their culture, and their history, because that is what that is. Football is not just a religion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said; it is much more than that. This Bill goes a long way to support fans up and down the country and give them that bit of reassurance that the Government have their back.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a lifelong Liverpool supporter, I would like to congratulate Liverpool and Arne Slot on winning the premier league in Arne’s first season as manager. This is my first season in Parliament, and I hope to follow in his footsteps, but I do not know what the parliamentary equivalent of winning the premier league is.
I welcome this Bill, and I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for standing up to the opposition to it, from the Tories and from the football industry. I noted the recent comment from one of the Chelsea owners, who felt it was hard to “appreciate the need” for a regulator. As an overseas owner of an English football club, he might not see the need, but I can assure him that football fans who have to pay increasingly extortionate ticket prices to see premier league games do see the need. Two of my nephews were lucky enough to see Liverpool win the premiership yesterday, but they had to pay over £50 for the privilege, and Liverpool is more sensitive to fan pressure on ticket prices than most.
Attending a premier league game is beyond the means of most fans, especially if they want to share that experience with family members. There is a desperate need to introduce an affordable ticket model. There is much to be learned from the German Bundesliga on that, despite our different ownership models. The current model of regulation is not working for the fans, or for the long-term interests of the clubs. If professional football clubs were treated like any other business, most would go bust tomorrow as their loans were called in.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I agree wholeheartedly with all that the hon. Member has to say. Will he join me in congratulating Blackburn Rovers on their outstanding community work, especially to support young boys and girls from all backgrounds in football? Their commitment to inclusivity and development at grassroots level is truly commendable.
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, and I pay tribute to the work of Blackburn Rovers in their community.
We are probably all aware of the examples of Everton and Manchester United. Both are up to their ears in debt while either building or planning to build stadiums that cost between £750 million and £1 billion. If we look lower down the leagues, the sums are still eye-watering. York City lost £235 million last season, Salford City lost £5.3 million and Stockport County lost £7 million. It is difficult to see how, at some stage, without regulation, more and more clubs will not simply go to the wall. The financial precarity in football is such that it leaves the clubs open to bad actors seizing on their financial vulnerabilities to offer a route to potential success. I am, of course, referring to dirty money and the pernicious practice of sportswashing by dubious owners who see club ownership as a PR vehicle to airbrush their misdeeds and human rights abuses to reconstruct their reputations and exert geopolitical influence. It is deeply regretful that this odious and morally corrupting practice has been allowed to establish a foothold in our game since Roman Abramovich came to England as the owner of Chelsea football club with dirty money from Russia. He was found to have funded or donated over £100 million to illegal settlement expansion in the west bank.
The other issue I want to raise is around agent fees. In 2022 to 2023, over £408 million was paid by Premier League clubs to agents and facilitators, and in the football league over £65 million was paid in agent fees. Some agents are acting on behalf of both the player and the club and receiving remuneration from both. If that is not a conflict of interest or a potential bribe, I do not know what is. I strongly encourage the Government to look at this and try to stop as much money going to agents and get it back into grassroots football.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Football is more than a business; it is one of our country’s greatest exports and a pillar of local and national identity. Football would be nothing without its fans, and this strengthened Football Governance Bill will put fans firmly back at the centre of the game. For too long, financial instability has meant that loyal fans and whole communities have risked losing their cherished clubs as a result of mismanagement and reckless spending. The previous fan-led review was instigated following three trigger points: the collapse of Bury FC, the coronavirus pandemic, which suspended football, and the European super league. The fan-led review recommended in the light of those events and the structural issues in the pyramid that the Government should establish an independent regulator for football finances.
I am delighted that our Labour Government have reintroduced and improved this Bill without delay to deliver on our commitment to football fans. The Bill’s primary purpose is to ensure that English football is sustainable for the benefit of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. It will improve the sustainability of club finances, prevent rogue owners and directors, and strengthen the voice of fans. This legislation will protect our football pyramid for future generations. The independent football regulator will have three main objectives: club financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and the safeguarding of club heritage. The proposed regulatory activities are pretty standard—it is a light-touch regulator.
The improvements that our Labour Government have made to the Bill include clubs providing effective engagement with their supporters on changes to ticket prices and any proposals to relocate their grounds. The regulator will be given a remit to include parachute payments to be considered through any backstop mechanism when considering finances across the game. The requirement to consider Government foreign and trade policy has been ditched, which is appropriate, and the regulator will ensure that clubs democratically elect fan representatives for the club to engage with, which is right. We must have that clear commitment to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the game.
I was therefore gobsmacked when I heard the thoroughly disappointing and embarrassing amendment from the official Opposition in the name of the shadow Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. As a member of the Bill Committee, he well knows that there was genuine consensus on the Bill. It is fundamentally the same Bill with just a few changes, and I do not understand why he does not support them. As has been mentioned, the former Member for Chatham and Aylesford Dame Tracey Crouch worked so hard on the fan-led review.
Rachel Hopkins
No, I will not; I have only four minutes.
I remind the shadow Secretary of State what he said on that last day of Committee when unfortunately the previous Bill did not make it to wash-up. He said,
“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”
and
“a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans”.––[Official Report, Football Governance Bill Public Bill Committee, 23 April 2024; c. 244.]
By declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Conservatives are now opposing greater financial sustainability across the football pyramid, the tackling of rogue owners, greater fan engagement and club heritage protections. It is a disgrace that they are not supporting the Bill, but I support it wholeheartedly.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I want to focus on the distribution of revenues through the pyramid. Thornbury and Yate is a largely rural constituency with no league clubs, but it does have a number of clubs with passionate supporters in steps four to seven—otherwise known as levels eight to 11 of the men’s football pyramid—as well as teams in levels five and 10 of the women’s pyramid. I have already had the pleasure of watching Tytherington Rocks and Yate Town. I congratulate Yate on clinching the southern league division one south title on Saturday. I wish them well in the premier division.
Tyrone Mings played for Yate before he played in the premier league and for England, and he illustrates one reason why investment in the grassroots is so important. The benefits go far wider, though. For supporters, it can be an affordable way to watch football and feel a connection with their community, and many of them contribute to their clubs through volunteering. Players of all abilities have a chance to find a level at which they can play, with all the health and wellbeing benefits that football brings, as well as the opportunity to progress to the professional game for the most talented. The wider community benefits are community outreach programmes and fans using local services and shops.
Sadly, although there is great wealth at the top of the game, in recent years the share of revenue making its way even to football league teams has decreased, never mind to grassroots teams such as those in my constituency. Grassroots teams are outside the scope of the proposed regulator, and I feel that is a missed opportunity. The issues that keep non-league managers awake at night are more likely to be fundraising drives, or the difficulties of securing finance for ground upgrades. Making a ground safer at the next level up can be a real challenge when a club cannot secure funding. That has prevented at least one local club from taking up its rightful place.
It would be fair to say that football has given me long periods of resilience-building interspersed with moments of sheer joy—an experience common to many supporters. The Bill has the potential to ensure that those emotions are tied to actions on, rather than off, the pitch. I am astonished that some people are trying to pretend that everything is currently fine. I would not be so blasé, as an Oxford United fan who lived through the Maxwell years, which included his bizarre proposal to merge the club with Reading FC and the entire first team being put up for sale after his death. We cannot rely on the benevolence of owners in what is a cutthroat business.
If we are to make football in this country truly sustainable, it must be done from the ground up. I urge the Minister to think again about the scope of the regulator to ensure fairer funding throughout the pyramid.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill to Parliament and building on the great work of former MP Dame Tracey Crouch. I am sure that Dame Tracey is, like me, absolutely bewildered by the new-found opposition of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), to the Bill—unbelievable.
I congratulate Lower Breck, a fantastic non-league football club in my constituency, on winning a thrilling game on Saturday to reach the play-off finals of the north-west counties premier league. It would of course be remiss of me not to mention the historic achievements of my beloved Liverpool football club, who yesterday won an incredible 20th league title. I thank Arne Slot, the team and staff at LFC for that wonderful achievement of putting our club back on the perch, and for giving all Red supporters a day—and a night—that will live long in the memory.
The long-awaited Football Governance Bill represents an opportunity to fix the game once and for all, but I will touch on three areas where I feel we could strengthen the Bill for all who play and watch the beautiful game. We need a Bill that will tackle the pricing-out of working-class supporters. Of those announced, the majority of prices for 2025-26 have been frozen at premier league clubs, but that has only happened following a concerted and co-ordinated effort by fan groups, led by the Football Supporters’ Association. I commend the supporters who have driven that campaign—so many groups and people deserve a mention. For fans to put aside sectarian differences and campaign in such a way shows the level of concern about ticket prices. It has been a privilege to stand alongside many of those supporters.
Despite the news that prices are frozen, the reality is that those prices are already too high, especially for younger fans. Thousands of young working-class supporters were priced out of Anfield yesterday, as some tickets were going for over £1,000. It remains of great concern that we are seeing a gradual reduction in season ticket and general admission numbers in favour of a growing number of hospitality and one-off admissions, at prohibitive costs for the regular fan. In 2025, the Premier League’s global and domestic commercial and broadcast revenue has gone up by 17% to £12.25 billion. There is no income problem in football; it is an expenditure and mismanagement problem that needs to be addressed.
I therefore ask the Secretary of State to consider amendments to ensure that the new independent football regulator has involvement in ticket pricing, including by reporting on that activity in its “state of football” report and ensuring that fans have genuine input into their club’s ticketing policy through the structured engagement that it will oversee, and that the IFR undertakes a review of concessionary rates across the game to ensure that loyal younger and older fans are not priced out of their sport. We can never allow the greed of some owners who have no idea about the importance of this working-class game to the communities it should always serve.
Today, on Workers’ Memorial Day, it is apt to remind the House that evidence shows that former professional footballers are four to five times more likely to develop dementia or other neurodegenerative conditions. Football families for Justice is now looking to Parliament to intervene, and I hope the Minister will listen to its calls and look at the amendments.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention how PSR—profitability and sustainability rules—are perceived by many to have unfairly targeted certain clubs, including the blue half of my city in the form of Everton. Many Evertonians believe that the Premier League’s handling of their case represents an abuse of process. They would like to see an amendment passed to this Bill, the Everton clause, giving the new regulator a backstop power to require the Premier League to rerun a PSR process if there were concerns about its fairness. As a minimum, supporters of all clubs should have the ability to appeal to the regulator to ensure fair and due process in PSR cases to prevent any perception of unbalanced treatment.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Football is not just an important cultural institution in Britain, but one of our great successes and our most successful export. I accept that the Government have only the best of intentions in wanting to set up an independent regulator and I am sure Labour Members genuinely believe this Bill will achieve good things, but I fear they are mistaken.
I fear that the regulator will hinder growth in a sector that should be powering our economy forward instead of being held back by red tape and political interference. The Prime Minister says he wants to reduce the number of quangos yet has set up 41 new ones in his first eight months in office. That is because this Government’s first instinct is always to regulate first and ask questions later. How long will it be until an independent cricket regulator is proposed, and perhaps rugby after that—we could have two, one for union and the other for league?
I believe we should make a different choice: we should accept that the state already does too many things in our country and does many of those things not very well. I believe that we should limit the role of the state to a smaller number of areas and demand that it performs those roles better.
This Bill threatens the future health of English football. Labour’s changes to the remit of the regulator will impose a significant regulatory burden, which will be felt particularly harshly by lower league clubs. The ultimate cost will be borne by the fans. Ticket prices, already rising on average by 7% this season, will rise further. Compliance costs for clubs are estimated at £35 million; that is money that could be spent on football instead of compliance. Is that really a good use of money?
The operational costs of the regulator are estimated to be £97.9 million, all funded through a new levy. Small clubs will struggle under the burden. What the Government are saying is that they want to take £130 million out of the game and spend it on administration. That means that the cost of Labour will yet again be felt by working people, despite what the Government claim.
I am fully aware that it was a Conservative Government who launched the fan-led review into football governance chaired by Dame Tracey Crouch. That review made targeted recommendations for an independent regulator, focused solely on financial stability and protecting club heritage. The previous Football Governance Bill, introduced last year, tried to strike that careful balance. While I would have had questions about that Bill, I have even more significant concerns about this one. That is because Labour’s version is a different beast. It has expanded the regulator’s remit to cover parachute payments, solidarity payments, fan engagement mandates, new spending controls, and unnecessary diversity, equality and inclusion reporting.
This Bill will take £130 million out of football and spend it on administration. It will expand the role of the state into a sector that is commercially successful and where that intervention is unnecessary. It is more Government at a time when we need less, and that is why I shall oppose this Bill tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. As hon. Members can see, a number of Members still wish to speak, so the time limit will be reduced to three minutes after the next speaker, Jon Pearce.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
On Saturday, at 12.30 pm, I and thousands of other Derby County fans will be racked with nerves as the club faces Stoke City, hoping to avoid relegation from the championship yet again. The fact that we have been through such occasions so often over the years will not make it any easier to endure. We have heard from supporters of many other clubs, from Charlton, Blackpool, Sheffield Wednesday, Reading and too many to mention, but here is my case for why I believe that Derby County provides the best example of why we need this Football Governance Bill—finally, a competition we can win.
Any good football anecdote should obviously start with Brian Clough. Having won us the league for the first time in our history in 1971-72, he was sacked less than a year later by the club’s chairman, to the horror of our club’s supporters. That led to protests in the streets and a threatened players’ strike. It is fair to say that there were no minimum standards of fan engagement back then, as the board of directors hid in the boardroom and relieved themselves in champagne buckets to avoid the fans’ protest.
A league championship in 1974-75 aside, years of financial mismanagement led us to drop down into the third tier and face a winding-up order in the High Court. We were saved by a certain Robert Maxwell, a once honourable Member of this place, although in hindsight he was not a fit and proper person to run any business, and certainly not a community asset like a football club. He ultimately lost interest, stopped coming to games and stopped investing in the club. All the while, he was defrauding the Mirror Group pensioners. In retrospect, Derby County got off rather lightly.
Skip forward to October 2003, when “the three amigos” bought the club. John Sleightholme, Jeremy Keith and Steve Harding bought the club for £1 each, but they had no money of their own and very quickly—not for the last time—they sold the club’s stadium, Pride Park, and then charged us £1 million to rent it to stay there. The requirement in the Bill for clubs to seek pre-approval from the independent regulator for the sale or relocation of their stadium is absolutely essential.
It was at that point that I first joined the Rams Trust, the supporters’ group that campaigns for a stronger voice for supporters in the decision-making process at Derby County. Such trusts play a vital role in clubs up and down the country. The tireless efforts of fans to scrutinise the activities of the management of the club led to the conviction of four people.
Maxwell and the three amigos would have passed any fit and proper person test, which is why it is so important that this Bill introduces both a minimum standard of fan engagement and a club licensing regime, to help ensure a more consistent approach in how clubs are run and club finances are monitored. I am also delighted that parachute payments are included, because they have been the driver of our most recent dalliance with financial ruin. We desperately tried to get into the premier league, competing against clubs with parachute payments, ultimately leading us to a 21-point deduction, relegation and near extinction again.
The club was saved by a local businessman, but not without a dalliance with the fraudulent activities of somebody who was trying to buy us. The truth is that football—and Derby County in particular—is constantly threatened by fraudsters and by terrible ownership that is ruining our communities. This Bill will begin to stop some of the damage that is being done to clubs up and down the country, and I will be supporting it today.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Supporters of lower league football clubs know the score: relegation all but confirmed, millionaire financiers abandoned, desperately clinging on to former glory, leaky at the back, midfield absent, not much going on up top, leadership completely out of their depth—but enough about the Conservative party. Despite the Conservatives’ attempt to turn this debate into a game of two faces, I have a serious point.
In 2008, business partners Yasuaki Kagami and George Synan became majority shareholders at Plymouth Argyle, which had been shortlisted to host games at the 2018 world cup, had England’s bid been successful. It was not, of course, so their interest in the club collapsed. Finances were withheld and Argyle, with one eye on the premier league, were relegated to the championship, then league one and then league two, in the space of three years. They were on the brink of insolvency before they were rescued by James Brent.
English football clubs such as Argyle should never become cash cows for vultures such as Kagami and Synan. Our largest clubs should never become money laundering operations for oligarchs tied to murderous dictators. Our football clubs are the beating hearts of our communities, around which local economies thrive; identities, friendships and rivalries are forged; and our culture is exported.
I broadly welcome this Bill for the regulation of ownership that it will introduce, but there are no mentions of slavery or human rights in the ownership test. Will the Government answer whether they consider those issues important in the fit and proper ownership of clubs?
I have one more point. It is unfortunate that the Government voted down an amendment from the Lords that would have reduced gambling advertisement and sponsorship in English football. There is an obvious opportunity here to protect our young people from a toxic industry that deliberately preys on the vulnerable. I do not often give too much credit to Arsenal alumni, but I know that Paul Merson would have wanted this. Will the Government tell me why they voted down that amendment?
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Football clubs command a special place in the hearts of their community and the hearts of their fans. Their continued success is key to the identity and community spirit of their areas, and local clubs bring a great deal of economic benefit. I know that is the case with my team, Southend United—the Shrimpers—in the heart of Southend and in my constituency.
Over recent years, under the former owner, Ron Martin, we nearly lost our club. Financial mismanagement left the club unable to meet its obligations. It was put up for sale, but in the meantime creditors queued up at the door waiting to be paid. The club was taken to court, had numerous deadlines and point deductions imposed on it by the national league and faced a winding-up petition due to debt owed to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
What are we talking about risking the loss of here? We are talking about a club that was formed in 1906 and that started its life on the current Roots Hall site before moving to the Kursaal during the first world war, before finally finding its way back to Roots Hall in 1955 to a ground built almost exclusively by the supporters’ club under the leadership of Sid Broomfield. It is a community asset to so many. It is a place where people come to share a common purpose, a place for community engagement and, for some, a place that gets them out of social isolation.
There is then the social impact of the club, estimated by the Shrimpers Trust to be worth £10.3 million annually. In one of its publications, the trust drew the following conclusions:
“Fans are not customers; we are the key stakeholders in the football clubs… Football clubs are not businesses, they are cultural heritage assets born of and represented by their communities”.
I am proud to see that this Bill tackles those issues head on. The Shrimpers Trust welcomes its provisions, while having some sensible suggestions to improve them further. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said that she will look at those in Committee.
It is disappointing that the Tories want to kill this Bill, despite it being in their manifesto. Fans are clear that they are not happy about that. A statement released just today by the Shrimpers Trust thanks Members on both sides of the House for the work that they have done so far, but it also says:
“We urge those parties to continue to work together to progress this legislation and…to listen to the fans as the game’s primary stakeholder, rather than be swayed by out-of-touch figures with vested interests”.
I welcome this Bill.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important piece of legislation and what it will mean for football fans in Hertford and Stortford, thousands of whom travel week in, week out to premier league games in London, to which we are ably linked by our rail services.
Before I turn to the specific measures in the Bill, I would like to touch on why football is so important to communities such as mine. Since my election in July last year, it has been a pleasure to visit and watch a number of the non-league clubs across Hertford and Stortford, and to meet some of the managers, coaches, players and volunteers who keep them going and bring our community together. So many players at non-league clubs such as those go on to much larger teams in the future, too. We cannot overestimate the importance of grassroots football in our communities, and I pay tribute to Bishop’s Stortford football club, Sawbridgeworth Town FC, Hertford Town football club and Ware football club. I particularly pay tribute to Ware and Sawbridgeworth, which have just avoided relegation in the latest season.
I would also like to briefly update the House on the 93rd birthday of John Staines. Some Members may remember that I have raised the topic of Hertford Town football club’s drive to get 1,000 people down to their game against Flackwell Heath to mark John’s birthday following more than 60 years of dedicated support for the club, 30 of them as a volunteer. It was heartwarming to see our community turn out to recognise John’s contribution to the club, and I am pleased to report that we saw just over 1,000 people turn out in Hertford to do so.
It has become apparent in recent years that we need to protect our game, and I applaud the Bill’s aim of protecting and promoting the sustainability of English football in the interests of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. I welcome its core objectives of ensuring sound club finances and systemic financial resilience and safeguarding club heritage. In particular, the creation of an independent football regulator is most welcome, delivering on this Government’s manifesto commitment to protect clubs and empower fans.
In the time I have left, I want to mention one quick point that was raised with me by some of our non-league clubs ahead of this debate, which I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could address. Clubs have highlighted the disparity in contract regulation between non-league and professional football; currently, non-league players can be offered a full-time contract only at the age of 18, while in professional football players can be contracted at 17. To ensure fairness to our grassroots clubs, will the Secretary of State consider equalising the age at which non-league clubs and professional clubs can offer full-time contracts to players in the future?
It has been my absolute pleasure to spend time speaking to our local non-league clubs. I know that our residents are immensely passionate about football, and it is fantastic that this Bill is being brought forward to put our fans right at the heart of that great game.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud season ticket holder of Hartlepool United and—I am told—the first member of Hartlepool United Supporters Trust to be elected to represent our town as its MP.
As we have heard today, football is not just a game; it is a vital part of our community and our identity—it is the thing that makes a town such as Hartlepool truly a place. The importance of this Bill, therefore, cannot be overstated. It is about putting fans back at the heart of our football clubs, where they rightfully belong, because for a town such as Hartlepool, our football club means everything. As Pools fans know, the establishment of an independent regulator to ensure that clubs operate with integrity and accountability really matters. The Bill will create a new owners and directors test, ensuring that those in charge of our clubs are suitable custodians of their history, their heritage and their place within our communities—Pools fans absolutely know that that matters. Owners come and go, but fans remain in our football clubs, and that is what we must protect.
I believe that the new regulator has a chance to act on the campaigns and priorities of fans. As a proud supporter of a national league club who sincerely hopes that we leave that league—in the right direction—as soon as possible, I propose that the newly established regulator focuses on and champions the 3UP campaign, which is being led by the National League. That campaign calls for the promotion of three clubs from the national league to the football league, aligning it with the rest of the football pyramid. Finally, as the new regulator leads discussions with the Premier League regarding the redistribution of football income, it must ensure that the needs of the national league are not overlooked during that process. It must use its new powers to intervene if necessary in the distribution of revenue if it becomes clear that the national league is being ignored. Redistribution of the vast wealth that exists in football clubs to places like Hartlepool is critical not only for the clubs but for the communities they serve.
We can foster growth in every part of our country if we get this right. Our football clubs, communities and fans are at the forefront of this legislation. If done right, it has the ability to return football to what it always has been and should be: for the fans, by the fans—once more, the people’s game.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a big week for Derby County, as we fight valiantly to stay in the championship. There are no guarantees of who will rise and fall in the football league, but we trust that our clubs themselves will go on. To be able to speak in support of a piece of legislation that gives more control and certainty back to our communities is a great privilege.
Our club’s recent financial struggles are part of the reason we have this Bill. In 2021, the heartbeat of the club—the fans—had no say in or influence on the financial mismanagement that led to the club going into administration and the 21-point deduction we saw as a penalty. We ended up relegated to league one. The RamsTrust, one of our fan associations, set out that the most important provisions of the Bill—certainly those that will resonate most powerfully with supporters of Derby County—are those that seek to improve financial resilience in the game. The RamsTrust asks local MPs to support the Bill, so I am glad that all Derby and Derbyshire constituencies have Labour MPs to help us get this Bill through, despite opposition from the Conservatives.
I stand with fans today, as I did when I marched alongside over 10,000 fans to Pride Park on 30 January 2022, carrying banners and singing in solidarity to demand that the club was saved. It was saved by local fan and businessman David Clowes, after a disastrous attempt to buy the club by Chris Kirchner, who was sentenced to jail for fraud last summer. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) rightly said at the time that there is no clearer example of the urgent need for better governance of football in this country and to protect football clubs.
I hope that some good can come from that terrible time for Derby County fans and that the Bill will make it less likely for such a situation to happen to others. The Bill is so important in giving fans a louder voice. My brilliant staff member Sarah Chambers already uses her impressively loud singing voice to sing Derby County songs louder than anyone I know, including in the office.
This Bill is for the fans on cold terraces and in the stands, the volunteers and mascots and those in the wider football community, the coaches running the grassroots teams that our children play in and the parents who run the line in all weathers. I hope we can all support the Bill and make it stronger still. I wish Derby County every success in its final crucial match of the season on Saturday. Up the Rams!
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Fans of Reading football club, including the many in my constituency, will be anxious as they wait for the final game of the season. We are neck and neck with Leyton Orient, and a good result against Barnsley on Saturday—apologies to the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—will send them to the play-offs. Any football fan knows these jitters; they are an essential part of what makes the beautiful game so beautiful.
The sad reality is that Reading fans are anxious for another, entirely avoidable reason: the stranglehold that their absent owner Dai Yongge has on their club. I will not rehearse it all now; I spoke about it in a Westminster Hall debate a few weeks back, and we have heard a lot tonight about the state of the club. However, with the EFL now finally forcing Dai Yongge to sell up, with a deadline of 5 May, Royals fans really are nervous. The Bill will come too late for Reading fans, but it is so important, because what has happened to Reading should never be allowed to happen to another club.
I want to take this opportunity to praise the Supporters’ Trust at Reading, which has been fantastic in standing with the club and fans throughout this process. I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me and colleagues to discuss the plight of Reading, and I thank the Minister for meeting with us and staff. Staff welcomed the Bill, as have fan groups up and down the country, which makes it all the more shocking that the Tories have U-turned and are proposing to vote against it tonight. What the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) said—that it is all okay because no club has been lost irrevocably—is an indictment, and there is one party that has been completely silent tonight. Where are the Reform MPs? Why are they not in the Chamber standing up for the clubs in their constituencies? It is not good enough.
I will quickly touch on three aspects where the Bill could go further and do what I hope it will: ensure that what happened to Reading is never repeated. The first is the protection of community assets. The Bill rightly protects stadiums, but it would be great to see more action on other community assets, including training grounds. The second is about giving fans a say in their club. It is so important that the Bill is strong, so that bad-faith clubs are not allowed to get away with simply paying lip service to these matters. Finally, it is so important that a fit owners test is included in the Bill, but we need to work out what will happen when bad owners are already in post or slip through the net. I recognise the huge complexities here, but Reading really is a cautionary tale.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). I speak in favour of the Bill, which I hope will prevent what happened to our club, Reading FC, from ever happening to any other English club. I realise that time is short, but I want to put some of the key facts across in my brief remarks.
Reading is one of the oldest clubs in the EFL. It has a proud history, with two spells in the premiership and glorious cup runs. Reading holds the record for the most points ever scored in the championship: 106 points in one season. It is also a family club, with a strong track record in women’s football. Sadly, all that has been put at risk by really, really irresponsible ownership. This has led to points deductions and relegation, threatening the very future of the club. Reading fans have had to suffer an impossible emotional rollercoaster for more than three years. We hope there is now some light at the end of the tunnel.
To explain our story, I should say that Reading, like many other English clubs, was owned by a responsible local owner who had the best interests of the club at heart. I pay tribute to Sir John Madejski and all those who worked with him, and to other Reading players and managers. Dai Yongge bought the club in 2017, and while things started out well, with investment in the new training ground, that quickly changed and Mr Dai appeared to be losing interest in the club. He was subject to winding-up petitions and fines after a series of financial issues, which led to severe points deductions and the club being relegated to league one. Things went from bad to worse in the 2023-24 season, and it seemed that the future of club was in doubt. Thankfully, Mr Dai finally announced that he was going to sell, but the process was drawn out for more than a year and a half. As I know from dealing with the EFL, the current rules mean that there is little the league can do—one sale even fell at the final hurdle last summer, to the agony of fans.
Despite that, our young team has performed brilliantly, and there are hopes of us reaching the play-offs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said. It has been an emotional rollercoaster, and I again praise fans, but I would not want to wish this on any other club in England, or indeed anywhere in the world. I urge Members from across the House to rethink their position and consider how an effective regulator would have prevented this awful situation, which we have had to suffer for far too long.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I am pleased to support the Bill, which will protect our football clubs and the heritage of our game. My club Burton Albion, the Brewers, which plays in league one—that position will hopefully be secured under the stewardship of Gary Bowyer—is fully in support of the Bill. We are looking forward to our match against the Secretary of State’s Wigan side; I know that she will want to wish us luck.
It is fitting that one of the key measures in the Bill is designed to protect the heritage of English football, given that Burton Albion will mark its 75th anniversary on 5 July.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley FC, which is one of the oldest teams in the west midlands, is so important and integral to the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need funding through the entire football pyramid, and not just for the elite?
Jacob Collier
Absolutely. Our club was formed at Burton town hall, with the name Burton Albion chosen through overwhelming support on a show of hands. From the humble beginnings of non-league football, in 2016 the Brewers would go on to be promoted to the championship. It was a remarkable achievement for a club rooted firmly in the local community, built not on vast fortunes but on good management, the strong leadership of Ben Robinson and loyal support. The club touches the lives of so many local people, and like so many Burtonians, it is a key part of my family story, too. My very first football game was at Eton Park with my dad, and one of my first jobs was pulling pints behind the bar in the ground, which set me up for politics, as I served fans in the away end, so I got used to dealing with difficult people, like Derby fans.
The town fondly remembers the FA cup in 2006, when the mighty Brewers took on Sir Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United, and despite Rooney and Ronaldo coming on in the 58th minute, they still could not stop the Brewers. Like thousands of Burtonians, as a nine-year-old, I made the trip to the rematch at Old Trafford, and came back on the coach having lost 5-0. It was not to be, but it was a proud part of our town’s story. These memories live on in our town and show the power of football to bring people together. That is key to this Bill, which recognises that football clubs are not businesses to be brought, traded or asset-stripped at will; they are living parts of our communities.
Improving fan engagement is a key part of the Bill. BAFC already works hard on that through the fan advisory board and the Burton Albion Community Trust. The recently formed Brewers Union adds a splash of black and amber, and loud cheers, wherever the Brewers go. The Pirelli would not be what it is without the fans, and Burton Albion already goes way beyond what is required in this Bill. The work of the Burton Albion Community Trust, which was a strong focus of Ben Robinson as chairman, continues to touch so many lives on and off the pitch, from vaccinating local people to mental health support within our communities. That is not to mention the grassroots teams that the club supports across Burton and Uttoxeter, of which there are too many to mention.
The fabric of our town would be totally changed were it not for Burton Albion. I am privileged to represent such a community-rooted club that uplifts lives every day. This Bill protects clubs like Burton Albion, it strengthens the future of the national game, and it puts communities back where they belong: at the heart of football. Up the Brewers.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
For places like Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, football is more than just a game; it is a source of pride, identity and belonging. Whether it is the roar at Blundell Park or the celebrations at the Linden Club, football unites our communities in a way few other things can. That is why my local clubs and I warmly welcome the steps that this Labour Government have taken to strengthen the Football Governance Bill and ensure the future of our national game.
Football is nothing without its fans. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) is not in his place, but he has previously been on record saying that this is
“a good Bill to crack on with”.
He said it had been pursued
“crucially, for the future of football fans. They are the ones we have been thinking about through the whole process.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 244.]
What on earth has happened? The Conservatives say it is another Bill, but it is not. It is their Bill with a few additions. The Bill has not been changed. They have shifted their position and it is a shameful situation. By putting supporters back at the heart of decision making, this Bill honours the passion and loyalty that sustain clubs up and down the country.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I thank my Member of Parliament for giving way. She talks about strengthening the Bill even further, but does she acknowledge that the fans at Blundell Park would not blame a supposedly independent regulator, like Ofwat, Ofgem or whatever, but would blame the politicians, if the regulator made a decision about potential investment in the club that they did not like?
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman will know that politicians are blamed for just about everything anyway, so it will not make much difference. This is a very tightly drafted Bill, and the role of the regulator is detailed in it. That is what the regulator will have to follow, and those are the parameters that have been set.
While the very top of English football enjoys huge success, the financial foundations for many clubs in lower leagues are far too fragile. Bad ownership, financial mismanagement and unfair wealth distribution have pushed too many proud institutions to the brink. This Labour Government are taking action. We are delivering on our manifesto promise—and, in fact, the Conservatives’ manifesto promise—to establish a regulator to protect clubs, ensure sustainability and empower fans, in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who are now anti-regulation, preferring the continuation of the current wobbly, unfair system. They are taking a hands-off approach, reversing their previous policy and backing the elite premiership clubs at the expense of those in lower leagues.
Our local clubs are adored, and with good reason. We have so much to celebrate. Cleethorpes Town FC have made my community proud, having been crowned champions with three games to spare, and securing their well-deserved promotion. Meanwhile, Grimsby Town are pushing hard for the play-off—although I remember that I said the same thing during the Westminster Hall debate, and then we lost, so we are still trying. I hope that Members will give us a cheer on Saturday if we get through. The success of these clubs is not limited to the pitch: initiatives such as Grimsby Town Foundation generate more than £4 million in social value in our area, which shows that clubs are not businesses but engines of hope for communities. We must never again allow them to be treated as disposable assets. They belong to the fans, and to the towns that they represent. The Bill introduces the protections that are needed if local clubs are to thrive and continue to bring enjoyment for generations to come.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
In my constituency, we are lucky to have Mansfield Town as our local club. The Bill will give us an independent football regulator, and new rules to protect our clubs and empower fans. Pro-growth and light-touch, it will help to ensure that all clubs throughout the football pyramid thrive. While football is certainly an incredible sport, full of excitement, it has the power to do more than just provide entertainment. Our local football clubs are often a focal point for our community, and it is important for us to nurture and support that in our constituencies. I am pleased to say that Mansfield Town do just that. I wholeheartedly support their work, which helps to break down barriers to opportunity, and as a local MP, I will do whatever I can to support their civic-minded aspirations. I hope that Mansfield Town will continue to go from strength to strength over the coming years.
I will be proud to vote for a Bill that delivers on our manifesto commitment to establish the independent football regulator and a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans, and keep clubs at the heart of their communities. Football would be nothing without its fans, and this strengthened Bill will put them firmly back at the centre of the game. The fans, the board and the management of Mansfield Town football club have told me that they welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering this important legislation, and I thank the Secretary of State for bringing it to the House and giving us all an opportunity to support it.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
In my constituency, we are and will always be proud of our club, Morecambe FC. Just one week ago, Morecambe lost a match and, unfortunately, confirmed our relegation. I was gutted, but I know that we will come back fighting, because resilience runs through our town, our fans and our club. In Morecambe, we have the best fans in the country. When we went to Chelsea, we overwhelmed the home fans a little bit. I do not think they were expecting that level of noise, energy and passion from a club that went on to get beaten 5-0.
The truth is that Morecambe FC and its fans have been badly let down by poor ownership, which has damaged our club. Throughout the difficulties, the Shrimps fans’ trust and the board have done an incredible job of holding the club together. They have shown what it really means to care about a club. Despite their efforts, they have been kept at arm’s length while ownership talks drag on, leaving the club stuck in limbo and going from transfer window to transfer window. That is why the Secretary of State and I directly promised Morecambe before the election that we would deliver an independent football regulator. This Bill, which delivers the regulator, will strengthen suitability tests for owners and directors. It will introduce a licensing system to make sure that clubs are run responsibly. It will give fans a proper voice in how their clubs are managed. These are crucial steps to fix English football.
This Bill started in the last Parliament and was brought forward by a Conservative MP, Dame Tracey Crouch. It had cross-party support but, surprisingly, the Conservatives seemed to have spun on a dime. Their leader said that introducing a football regulator would be “a waste of money”, but one only has to look at the wider social, cultural and economic benefits of football to know that this is simply not true. Grassroots football gets people into the game. On matchdays, football brings people to pubs, cafés and shops in the area. Clubs often provide facilities for schools, youth teams and community groups. In my constituency, we have the Morecambe FC Community Foundation, which works with young people, elders, veterans and others. It is a really important local organisation.
Clubs such as Morecambe are part of the fabric of our towns, and part of what gives us our identity. They bring pride, passion and unbeatable matchday traditions, and in Morecambe we bring the best pies to football. Let us back this Bill’s sensible, light-touch regulation, and back clubs and their fans, who mean so much to so many towns.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on bringing forward this Bill. My love affair with football started with World Cup Italia in 1990: David Platt volleying the ball into the net in Bologna, giving us a 1-0 win over Belgium; John Motson’s fantastic commentary; Gazza’s tears; and Gary Lineker saying, “Have a word”. I was stunned. Thirty-five years later, I watch my resident Max Stokes’s “Villa On Tour” videos as he tours the country following the Villa, and my life is more reflective of Colin Firth’s character in “Fever Pitch” than an MP.
Why is this Bill so important? Frankly, despite the Conservatives not recognising it, the regulation and governance of football is not working. My football club, Aston Villa, almost had to sell car parks to pay a bill to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs five or six years ago because of poor governance. The European super league, led by the big six—or the big five and Spurs —tried to ruin European qualification. During covid, we had the sight of premier league football clubs going with their begging bowls to the Government to get through, because they would not pay their own staff. We have had the collapse of Bury FC, and we have heard stories about Reading—and other clubs are to follow.
As someone who travelled the football pyramid as a player, I can tell the House that Macclesfield Town do not exist anymore, so the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was inaccurate in what he said. I am sure he did not mean to be, but Macclesfield Town went bust. Macclesfield FC went to the bottom of the pyramid, and it is a new club.
Football clubs are about more than just what happens in 90 minutes on the pitch. They are where I spend time with my dad, and where it is still okay to hug and kiss strangers. My boy’s first word was “Mama”, but I was never prouder than when he said, “Up the Villa!” In coming to the estate today, I almost fell foul of the security guard, Stuart, who said that we were not allowed to wear offensive clothing—I was wearing a Villa shirt.
This Bill is important. It is a light-touch Bill; it is not major. Neither the Secretary of State nor the regulator will be telling Unai Emery to buy Marcus Rashford, or telling Wes Edens to invest in the north stand, although I wish he would. The Bill meets the challenges that we face as an industry, as clubs and as communities. It stops terrible things, like Cardiff City having to wear red because their owner thought it played better in China, or asking Wimbledon fans to go to Milton Keynes and lose their FA cup.
This should have been a policy that unified both sides of the House. I think Geoffrey Howe’s cricket analogy applies to the way the poor shadow Secretary of State defended today. Like Mrs Thatcher, he broke his bat before he came out.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
This Bill enables Labour Members to fulfil our manifesto commitment to make this the best place in the world to be a football fan. As outlined by the Secretary of State, the Bill will put in place a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs where they belong—at the heart of their communities. It is even more pleasing to be here after a successful trip to Wembley to see Crystal Palace overcome Aston Villa, with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). However, it was particularly pleasing to hear Birmingham City fans providing a great rendition of “Glad All Over” at their match the following day.
My long experience as a Crystal Palace fan, which has seen the club go into administration twice in a little over 25 years—in 1999 and 2010—has shown me the need for change, but this is not really about the larger clubs such as Palace. It is about the fact that the system is not working for clubs further down the pyramid, where the risk of takeover and abuse by malicious owners is even higher. We have heard from Members across the House about the clubs—Reading, Bury, Southend, and the litany goes on—that have been brought low by poor ownership. Since 1992, over 60 clubs have gone into administration. Notoriously, we have seen club owners simply uprooting clubs and moving them around the country, and changing badges and shirt colours without fans being able to prevent it.
Over my time as a fan and since being elected to represent Dartford in this place, I have seen the power of football clubs, not just as sporting organisations, but as the vessels for community identity and aspiration. They are often the most important local institution that binds a community together, and that gives a borough, town or city a sense of itself and of its potential. Dartford football club is an integral part of our town, having been founded over 130 years ago by members of the Dartford working men’s club and saved by its fans in the early 1990s. I wish the manager, Ady Pennock, and the players the very best of luck in their play-off match on Wednesday against Cray Valley in their bid to return to national league south, where they belong.
We all agree that football clubs must be solvent and well run, and every fan will dream of their club seeing success on the field, but they are and must remain so much more than companies competing in a marketplace. That is why the protection and regulation provided by this Bill are so vital. I hope that all Members of the House, for the sake of communities up and down the country, will support the Bill tonight.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Football is more than a game, and our clubs are more than corporate assets. The game is part of our national identity and heritage—from jumpers for goalposts to the local pub team, all the way up to the elite standard of the premier league.
We rightly talk about the premier league, which is a fantastic export from this country, but in my speech I want to celebrate the English football league, which has also provided immense entertainment, as well as having social and cultural value for communities up and down the country. It is home to some of the biggest clubs around the world, including the mighty Crewe Alexandra. Who, for example, can forget Nick Powell’s screamer for Crewe Alexandra against Cheltenham in the 2012 league two play-off final? I am sure that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) has not forgotten it, but if Members want to look it up, I recommend that they do. It demonstrates perfectly why football truly is the greatest sport on the planet. It is unfortunate that I am making this speech merely days after Port Vale, our nearby rivals, secured promotion to league one. I congratulate them on that achievement, but I cannot say that I wish them well.
Our national game is about more than winning trophies and signing world-class players. The game is part of the social fabric that binds our communities together. It is the week in, week out trips to Gresty Road with family or friends, the few pints beforehand, and the buzz from singing your club’s songs on the terraces. As custodians of these traditions, we have a duty to ensure we secure a sustainable future for the game we know and love, not just for elite clubs but the entire football pyramid. That is why I recommend, as a key provision in the Bill, the independent football regulator, which will have at its heart these objectives: the protection of clubs and cultural assets; the empowerment of fans; and financial sustainability for our beautiful game.
I conclude by thanking the Government for bringing the Bill back to the House. I support the measures in it to safeguard and protect one of our biggest cultural institutions.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak as the proud Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, the home of Nottingham Forest football club.
Many will know that Forest fans have had a season to remember. It has been brilliant to watch the men’s team performing so strongly in the premier league and I am hopeful that a place in Europe beckons, but we must also remember our women’s team. I congratulate them on their double success, lifting both the FA women’s national league cup and the northern premier division. Of course, there was also huge excitement this weekend as the men’s team reached the FA cup semi-final. Many local fans made the journey to Wembley and although the team were beaten by Manchester City, a club with one of the deepest squads in the world, Forest gave a fantastic account of themselves. I am sure many neutrals would have liked the City goal to have been just a touch bigger—perhaps that is something the Minister can think about as part of the Bill! It was a performance full of spirit and determination. I have no doubt that under the club’s ambitious leadership team, it will build on that going forward. The club’s commitment on and off the pitch has made our community in Rushcliffe immensely proud.
Football matters deeply to communities like mine. It is about not just matchdays but civic pride, shared memories, and a sense of belonging that spans generations and communities. Clubs like Nottingham Forest are part of our national story. Who can forget Forest’s wins in Europe in 1979 and 1980? But these clubs are also part of the everyday fabric of places like Rushcliffe. With the prospect of Nottingham Forest being back in Europe, I can assure everybody that the contribution the game makes to our local economy cannot be overstated. That is why the Football Governance Bill matters so much.
Football has long been one of the UK’s great success stories—it is one of our great exports, watched by billions around the world, generating jobs, investment and opportunities up and down the country—but too often we have seen how fragile the foundations can be. That is why I think the establishment of a football regulator will change things for good. It will protect the financial soundness of clubs, secure the systemic financial health of the football pyramid and safeguard the heritage that fans treasure. That is why I welcome the Bill. I applaud Ministers for bringing it forward and I will back it wholeheartedly.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
My constituents in Gateshead have, by and large, been subjected to a lot of dodgy owners in their time. The vast majority of my constituents are Newcastle fans. Many people remember the Mike Ashley era: the grotesque nightmare for Newcastle fans of seeing their football stadium named the Sports Direct at St James’ Park Arena, or being sponsored by Wonga. Even as a Sunderland fan, I found that pretty appalling. But Sunderland were not spared the nightmare of bad ownership. We had owners who used parachute payments—as chronicled in the Netflix nightmare show, “Sunderland ’Til I Die”—to buy a football club. I am therefore delighted to hear that parachute payments are within the scope of the Bill. Frankly, for me, that is a unique selling point of the Bill, not a downside.
A lot of my constituents also support Gateshead, which has had challenges with ownership as well. In 2019, Gateshead football club faced a winding up order, and the club was preserved only thanks to football fans including Neil Pinkerton, now Gateshead’s chairman, and Gateshead Soul. I say a big thank you to them, because it is thanks to Gateshead Soul and the current fan ownership of Gateshead football club that I still get to go to Gateshead matches with my dad, and that my son might one day be able to come and watch Gateshead matches with his dad. Ultimately, that is what football and football clubs are about: a sense of place and community.
Gateshead has faced a huge number of challenges as a football club. Somewhat infamously in the town, we were relegated in 1960, the last time we were in the football league, but we were not relegated on the basis of sporting merit; instead, we were voted out of the football league. Although there were two teams below us—Oldham and Hartlepool—it was Gateshead who were chosen to be kicked out of the football league. I am pleased to say that if Gateshead are successful in beating Southend this weekend and then progress through the play-offs, we will hopefully have an opportunity this season to right 65 years of wrongs and get back into the football league. However, it should never have happened in the first place. It is something that matters a great deal not just to me, but to my wider community.
Opposition Members talk about how football clubs do not disappear, but I am afraid that is simply wrong. The Gateshead who were relegated, Gateshead AFC, disappeared in the 1970s; they were soon followed by Gateshead United, who also disappeared in the 1970s. Those football clubs do not exist any more. The current Gateshead FC is not the same football club as before. That is very important to me because my grandfather, Allen Forster, played for the original Gateshead in the 1950s. In the limited time I have left, I hope the House will allow me to talk about him, because he was passionate about football. He was not only a professional footballer but, in his later years, the secretary of the Northumberland FA.
My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) have talked about dementia among footballers. My granddad was a footballer who headed big, heavy, wet leather footballs. He did not care—he would not have it any other way. He was a defender; that is what he did. In his later years, he began to forget things. I once found him driving around the village where I grew up, unable to remember how he got there or even how to drive his car back. It has a profound impact. I will never be able to prove that it was anything to do with heading footballs in the 1950s, but it is what I have always suspected, so I think it is important that it is part of our debate.
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward the Bill, which will be a huge benefit to teams like Gateshead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It is unusual for me to say this, but, having heard about Southampton earlier, we shall conclude with Portsmouth.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
What an honour that is, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start with an apology for my over-zealous intervention earlier and refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and by taking the opportunity to congratulate both Portsmouth’s men’s and women’s teams on securing championship status this season.
As a football fan, and as a Pompey fan in particular, life is a rollercoaster. The men’s team’s history is one of highs and lows. We are one of seven teams in the country to have won all football leagues, but we have also faced relegation—not just because of performance on the pitch, but because of financial instability and docked points. Pompey’s troubles were a combination of ownership that was poor at best and corrupt at worst. With a sell-off of assets and debt, our story is incredibly complex, with a series of owners including some who had international arrest warrants issued for them, others who had their assets frozen by Government, and one who no one could prove actually existed and was never met by the EPL prior to taking over. Club assets were sold off to other companies, but it was not clear if the club ever received those moneys, and items of important historical heritage were just chucked in the skip. The club ran up debts in excess of £100 million, including debts to local businesses and charities, and was basically written off after multiple administrations. This all took people’s love of our club for granted and cost people their livelihoods.
At one point, Pompey was such a toxic club that the only people willing to save and own it were its fans, and we began the rebuild. Fans and communities are the people hit the hardest, and often the people who pick up the pieces and rebuild, which is why they should be central to football regulation.
A new regulator can protect against poor ownership; force clubs to control their finances better, working to prevent the build-up of unsustainable debt; ensure that we have a competitive pyramid and a fairer distribution; prevent the sale of key assets; and ensure that fans are at the centre of the national game. A new regulator can protect clubs like mine, who are the beating heart of my community. Pride is everywhere in football. I am proud of my football club, and I am proud to have been a season ticket holder for more than 30 years at Portsmouth football club. I am proud to be an elected member of Pompey Supporters Trust. I am proud that our football club is now owned by people who genuinely love and are invested in Fratton Park, and I am proud to be in a Government who once again deliver on a manifest commitment.
I am also proud to have written a joint letter with Andy Cullen, Portsmouth’s chief executive, to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, in favour of the Bill and to invite them both to see how our club has risen from the ashes and is truly at the heart of our community. I am proud to back the Bill, and I am proud to be a football fan. For all fans, I am proud of the Bill.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I put on record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and everyone who has engaged with the process outside the Chamber. Like in politics, in football there is always a risk of scoring an own goal, and the Government have just done that with this Bill. It is plain common sense that a Labour donor and a key crony cannot lead an independent football regulator. It is yet another spectacular own goal by this Labour Government—so bad that one has to question whether match fixing is in play.
Is that highly controversial appointment the reason that it has taken so long for Labour to bring the Bill back to this place? For months, this Labour Government have held the ball in the corner, counting down the clock as the Prime Minister enjoys his free prawn sandwiches in a suit paid for by Lord Alli in his free box at Arsenal. So delayed is the Bill that Liverpool have already won the premier league, Leeds and Burnley have already been promoted to the premier league, the Toon Army have ended their long wait for a trophy, Birmingham and Wrexham have been promoted to the championship and a Labour MP has been sent off for punching a constituent in the street.
Introducing the Bill in the other place was an attempt to avoid the issue here for as long as possible, and the question that fans across the country will want an answer on is why? Was it because of Labour Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or because they would not know a football if it hit them in the face?
We Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game. The review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association. Having spoken to a great many football fans across the country and in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football.
As we have heard, the Government are putting our football clubs’ participation in UEFA-licensed competitions at risk. Does the Minister recognise that one particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football? Those are not my words but those of UEFA. Reports also suggest that UEFA has made it clear that it has specific rules to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition, the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding any federation from UEFA and teams from competition. Are the Labour Government prepared to be the reason that English football clubs risk being banned from the champions league, the UEFA league, the conference league, the super cup or—even worse—national competitions?
Moreover, UEFA, like the Conservative party, reportedly has concerns about scope creep from the Government’s regulator. Our Bill intended that the regulator would oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and help protect fans and heritage assets. However, this new Bill makes it more likely that, once established, the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond those areas and amount to Government interference. If Labour has nothing to hide, it should publish the letters.
There are already obvious ways in which the Government’s regulator will increase its own scope. The Minister in the other place was unable to provide a clear answer to questions asked on the following two matters. First, on a concern raised with me by serious and senior football people, where does the Government’s new Bill leave Newcastle United’s Saudi majority owners in relation to the regulator’s powers to investigate club owners? Are the Government saying to all those Newcastle fans who have seen cup glory for the first time in a generation that that will have to stop? Where will the Labour Government’s interference end? Labour and Liberal Democrat peers have voted down Conservative protections for such investment, risking the withdrawal of billions of pounds in investment from clubs.
Fans will have heard the comments today from MPs about scope creep in the ownership test. Could the Minister also clarify where this will leave clubs that are involved in multi-club models? For example, Manchester City head a worldwide group of partner clubs, and in 2023 Chelsea acquired a majority stake in the French ligue 1 club Strasbourg. How will the regulator assess these clubs? Will they assess the whole ownership group, in which case they suddenly become an international football regulator, or will they assess only clubs in England, in which case the super-wealthy clubs will simply hide losses in other jurisdictions, as other Members have pointed out. This could directly impact the flourishing women’s game, given the multi-club model in English football.
The own goal is already so much bigger than this place and politics. We on this side of the pitch understand football and we know why the independence of a football regulator is so important. The Labour Government do not. Apart from their donor, this Government already have 38 civil servants working on their regulator, making it clear that there is already political and Government interference in the function of football. This legislation and the Government’s action in proposing their own donor, David Kogan, as the chair explicitly and deliberately compromise the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England. It is also clear that this compromises the competitiveness of English football in its purest form: using your jumpers for goalposts in the local park and standing on the terraces with family and friends to support your local club.
We cannot lose sight of the business side of professional football and the delicate international ecosystem that sees fans from around the world enjoying English football. For example, only a handful of owners in the premier league are actually English these days. This country is a football global powerhouse, and every single one of us benefits, with billions of pounds for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country and tens of thousands of jobs. A phenomenal export, our beautiful game is watched across the world, with the premier league a true British success story that attracts the most fans and the best players and managers. The EFL and the national league are also fantastic competitions enjoyed by many across the country.
Football clubs up and down the pyramid are at the heart of our communities and are a force in many people’s lives, so much so that they even have the ability to split family loyalties. That is the case in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency, where historically you tend to be either a Millwall or a Charlton supporter. But as any football fan will know, competition across the world is rising fast, not just across Europe but in America, the far east and, of course, the new Saudi league, all of whom want a slice of the premier league’s success. Let’s be honest today: if this Labour regulator had been created many years ago, the premier league and all the benefits that Labour talks about would not exist. Let’s be honest with the fans about that.
I understand that the premier league is the first and only domestic competition in the United Kingdom where the international media rights strip out those of the domestic rights deals, and the Government are hitting it hard. As we have heard, the premier league alone will be hit across the course of this Parliament by £250 million of costs by this Labour Government’s Budget of broken promises. All clubs will see their costs increase, first from the Chancellor’s tax rises and secondly from the ever-increasing amount of red tape introduced by this Government and exemplified by this Bill. Football might have changed over the years, but the Labour party has not.
A Bill touted as reducing costs for fans does nothing of the sort. In fact, plain as day, it will increase the costs for every fan across the country. The Government can stand at the Dispatch Box today but they know full well that this regulator will increase the cost on fans, so much so that Labour peers voted against an amendment that would have disclosed the true cost of this regulator on football ticket prices. What are the Government trying to hide? I ask the Minister: why is she blocking transparency over ticket prices? Not one Labour MP has been able to say how their regulator will reduce ticket prices for fans across this country.
I will conclude, as I am conscious of time and want to give the Minister a chance to speak. This shameful Labour Government have once again put their party first—cronies over clubs, favours over fans, greed over the beautiful game. It seems that the Government have taken inspiration from John Barnes and taken his lyrics too literally when he sung,
“They’ll always hit you and hurt you”.
I am sure he did not mean that the Government should hit fans with increased ticket prices and hurt English football. The Conservative party is under new leadership and will not shy away from telling the fans the truth. Labour has shamefully cut grassroots sport funding across the country, including the Lionesses fund, and its regulator will mean even higher ticket prices for fans at every level of the game. As every Conservative knows,
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
We are calling full time on Labour’s shameless power grab over English football, which will certainly see them relegated in the minds of voters and put English football at major risk internationally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I would like to return to the substance of the Bill. English football is the envy of the world. It is one of our greatest exports, watched by billions globally with some of the most exciting players, clubs and stories in any league. The premier league, the EFL and the national league contribute billions to our economy, support thousands of jobs and provide the infrastructure that supports the next generation of sporting talent.
Despite the global success of English football, nothing can disguise the underlying fragilities of the game. Too many fans have watched on as their club sells their stadiums, changes colours or collapses under malicious ownership. Since 1992, over 60 clubs have gone into administration, and expert analysis suggests the financial picture across the pyramid is worsening, not improving. For each club that fails, there is a devastating knock-on impact for local communities. Indeed, these clubs are more than just businesses; they lay at the heart of communities up and down the country, steeped in history and providing sources of identity and pride across our towns, cities and villages. I have seen that at first hand when visiting clubs across the country—from Southend United to Everton, from Barnsley to Brighton. Those fans deserve to focus on what is happening on the pitch rather than off it.
Of course, it was the previous Government that launched a fan-led review into football governance. That review, led by the former Conservative Sports Minister Dame Tracey Crouch—I pay tribute to her for her tireless work on this topic—identified the need for an independent football regulator. Of course, it was the previous Government that published their Bill to do just that. It fell due to the election, when Members on both sides of this House stood on election manifestos that committed to bringing forward a regulator again.
Ultimately, the purpose of the Bill is simple: it introduces a new light-touch regulator for the game intended to cover the top five levels of men’s football. At a basic level, the regulator will require just three things of clubs: be a fit and proper owner, have a sensible business plan and consult the fans. It will of course be applied proportionately.
Several Members across the House have highlighted the experience of their local clubs with rogue owners, including my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb), for High Peak (Jon Pearce), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I know that many other Members would have liked to contribute to the debate.
I turn to financial distribution. I want to be clear that a football-led solution is the preferred outcome. The regulator’s primary focus will be ensuring that clubs have a suitable custodian and are run sustainably. Distribution should primarily be a matter for leagues themselves, but if a football-led solution cannot be reached, the regulator will be ready to step up if required. As a last resort, it can facilitate a solution. This backstop mechanism will only be used if football needs it, and it will be underpinned by the “State of the game” report, which will inform the regulator’s work for a comprehensive review of the financial health of football.
I turn to some of the other issues raised in the debate. A number of Members rightly paid tribute to their own grassroots clubs, and I have seen the contribution in my constituency of Barnsley South. Grassroots football is the foundation on which the football pyramid is built. It is not in scope of the Bill, but a few weeks ago we announced further investment. I was of course pleased to visit Basingstoke, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) also raised that point specifically. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) also mentioned it.
A number of Members mentioned concussion. That issue is not covered by the Bill, but the Secretary of State and I will meet families shortly. I have heard the points that they have made.
The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), rightly highlighted how some of the changes that we have made reflect the previous Committee’s report, whether with regard to fans or foreign policy. She also pointed out that we could ask 10 different people about parachute payments and get 10 different answers, but we believe it is right that they are not ruled out. She also spoke about how the chair of the regulator will need to demonstrate an understanding of the complex football ecosystem. I very much heard her comments about the appointment of the chair. We welcome the scrutiny that her Committee will provide—I know that she will be fair and robust. She asked for a cast-iron guarantee on clubs in trouble. We believe that the regulator would be able to prevent or mitigate similar situations, because regulation can be proactive. Real-time financial monitoring will allow early intervention if a club shows signs of distress. We heard so many examples in the debate, including Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Blackpool.
I appreciate the support and contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who raised a number of issues. I am happy to meet him to discuss them further. He asked specifically about commercial issues. The regulator will not intervene on commercial matters such as sponsorship. The Government will continue to follow the best available evidence on the impact of gambling sponsorship in sport to inform future decisions.
Let me be very clear: UEFA has confirmed in writing to the Secretary of State, and the FA confirmed directly to Members of the other place, that the Bill as drafted does not breach UEFA statutes. [Interruption.] The regulator will be operationally independent of Government and will not exert undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. Conservative Members call for private correspondence to be published. How many letters from FIFA and UEFA were published by their Government? None.
Let me address the reasoned amendment. It is disappointing but not surprising that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment to kill the Bill. I will take some of those points in turn during the short time I have left. The Secretary of State has selected David Kogan as her preferred candidate for the role of chair of the independent football regulator. That follows a fair and open recruitment process that was run in line with the Government’s code for public appointments. David brings a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries, making him an outstanding candidate for the role.
Let me make a few things clear on the increased costs and regulatory burden for all English football clubs, particularly in the lower leagues. First, these are exactly the same levy provisions used in the previous Bill, which the Conservatives introduced. As they will know, the Government are not setting the levy charge. Given the requirements in the Bill, we expect any charges to be distributed proportionately. Those with the broadest shoulders will pay the most.
I challenge the suggestion that the proportionate costs of the levy should lead directly to increased ticket prices. Some clubs have spent more on the transfer fee for one player than the regulator is estimated to cost over several years. When the levy is distributed across clubs, no club big or small will be charged more than is fair or affordable, so passing the costs on to fans would not be proportionate. It is quite amazing that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), spoke about own goals. When I was in opposition, I heard him question the then Sports Minister—now the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—about how the Bill could go further. Indeed, I have spent hours with the right hon. Member, whom I like and respect. I know that he has had a difficult day.
Each Member here from across the House will have a football club in their constituency, whether in the grassroots or up in the premier league. All of our communities have a stake in this game and in the pyramid. I believe this Bill will protect and promote the sustainability of the game. I thank everyone who has contributed to the Bill, from the clubs and the leagues to the fans, and of course to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that the sport we all love can be enjoyed for years to come by local fans and communities. It is the Labour party that is on the side of football fans. We are making good on our manifesto promise. Tonight we will deliver that change. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Community Health: Manchester Rusholme
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise an issue that is incredibly important to me and increasingly pressing for my constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.
The Government inherited a dire set of economic circumstances. Years of Tory funding cuts to local authorities and public services have been detrimental to communities, so I am pleased that the Labour Government have committed to handing power back to communities, as well as making commitments to reducing health inequalities. Disparities in community health and access to vital services are causing difficulties across the country, but they have had a disproportionate impact on my constituents.
My constituency of Manchester Rusholme is urban and incredibly diverse. I am proud to represent so many different communities. We also have many students and young people living in the constituency. Although we are discussing health inequalities, the issue goes far beyond health services. We need a wider debate about the many aspects that contribute towards our mental and physical health. As well as accessible and equal healthcare, that includes access to safe and clean local environments, stable work and income and secure and affordable housing. I will discuss the importance of those elements throughout the debate.
As Members know, I am passionate about protecting our local natural environments. We all know how beneficial fresh air and green spaces are to our health and wellbeing, but in Manchester, research shows that many have just 1 square metre of garden space. That means that turning parks and community green spaces into attractive outdoor environments is even more crucial. My constituency celebrates its diversity, and our parks are often where different cultures meet in exercise, play and enjoyment. We are lucky to have beautiful and historic parks such as Alexandra Park and Platt Fields Park.
Parks are also a space for those living in a city to escape high air pollution by acting as a carbon sink, absorbing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In Manchester, more than 1,200 people die a year as a direct result of toxic air, with babies, pregnant women, elderly people and people with respiratory illnesses most at risk. More than 54,000 children in Greater Manchester also suffer from asthma. We therefore must improve air quality in cities, including utilising public transport and making it easier and safer to travel by walking, wheeling or cycling. Without that, we risk isolating many people from society.
However, even parks are not safe from air pollution. While community green spaces should be an escape from damaging air pollution, evidence from Asthma and Lung UK suggests that less than 1% of the 43,000 public playgrounds in the UK meet guidelines set by the World Health Organisation. I have heard from young people in Ardwick about the air pollution near their school. In Ardwick Green Park, which is bordered by two main roads, children are at constant risk from the emissions just by playing outside. While we must improve access to local parks, we also need to improve air quality more broadly to create truly safe and clean natural spaces.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward? I spoke to him beforehand to get his thoughts. Does he agree that one of the great things that has happened is that the Minister in government has set aside planning for spaces where people can age well and live in an area designed for them to grow old? That is accelerating, including in Manchester Rusholme, to which he is referring, with some £1.5 billion of funding. That is welcome. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, does he agree that along with the 1.5 million houses that the Government are committed to ensuring will be built, environmental areas must be set aside? Trees are the lungs of the world, and trees have to be part of this, and they need to be planted for the future.
Afzal Khan
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. We need to do more to ensure that there is clean air for everyone, because it is essential for each of us to survive.
Another significant obstruction to community health is extensive waste, fly-tipping and litter. Wards in my constituency are plagued by high levels of fly-tipping and a lack of awareness of how to dispose of waste safely and legally. Fly-tipping and litter are an eyesore for residents and cause problems within communities. Countless constituents have written to me about them.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brilliant work done by locally led groups in my constituency to target these issues, including the Friends of Park groups, Moss Side Eco Squad, Upping It, and all those who individually “green” their alleyways and litter-pick. However, while being hugely beneficial to us all, their work should not be necessary. I have also been pleased to support the initiatives that the Government are already taking, such as the drink container deposit scheme, to encourage recycling. I thank my own local authority, Manchester City Council, for putting even more funds into dealing with fly-tipping this year to get to the root cause. We know that tackling this problem systematically is vital.
As well as being clean, green and tidy, our local environments must be safe, but high levels of knife violence have caused problems in Manchester for many years. Over the last three years, Greater Manchester police has recorded more than 2,000 crimes of possessing an
“article with a blade or point”.
Knife crime has also led to the tragic deaths of numerous young people in recent years, sadly including some of my own constituents. We cannot continue to let our young people down by allowing them to fall into violence. I am relieved that the Home Secretary is taking this issue seriously, and has already banned the ownership of certain dangerous knives. I am also grateful for the work of community groups in my constituency such as Mero’s World, the Hideaway Youth Project, Youth on Solid Ground and Moss Side Millennium Powerhouse to raise awareness of the terrible reality of knife violence,make bleed packs more accessible for responsive action, and give young people a safe place to go. We must work on preventive measures to stop knife violence devastating our communities: that must remain a top priority.
Poor standards of work, poor pay and job insecurity also contribute to low levels of community health. Job stability determines everything from a financial safety net to housing conditions, heating and eating nutritional food, but more than 13,000 people in my constituency are not in employment, which is more than the UK average. Nearly 14% of people rely on out-of-work benefits in Manchester, the eighth highest percentage in the country. As for those who are in work, more than 11% of people in Manchester are in low-paid employment, which is significantly higher than the national average. As we all know, low-paid work can damage both physical and mental health, increasing stress and anxiety levels, which are made worse by external factors such as the cost of living crisis. We also know that people from communities that experience racial inequality often have higher levels of unemployment than others. Those higher levels of unemployment and low-paid work in our area are detrimental to the general wellbeing of the community, and contribute to higher levels of poverty.
Furthermore, it is shocking that more than 47% of children in Manchester are living in poverty. That is the third highest proportion in the country. Growing up in poverty has an impact on childhood development, and plays a significant role in education and early-years experience. For example, children in the most disadvantaged areas are less likely to pass key GCSEs. Health Equals has found that children growing up in poverty are four times more likely than those from wealthier families to struggle with mental health issues by the time they are 11. This creates a worrying future for young people growing up in my constituency, who will be disproportionately affected by poor economic conditions. I am pleased that the Government are committed to breaking down those barriers that exist for young people. Children and young people cannot be forgotten in conversations about our local community, because they form a key group in our community who desperately need support that has previously been lacking.
A further issue that is fundamental to the health of our community is housing. Affordable, warm and safe housing should be a fundamental right, yet so many people are living without this necessity. In Manchester Rusholme, up to 40% of households privately rent—double the national average—yet over one in four privately rented homes across Manchester are non-decent. I am grateful for the Government’s efforts to deliver on our promise to transform the rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will provide much-needed security for renters across the country.
I am proud to have such a diverse community living in my constituency, but no one should suffer due to their identity or background. For example, research shows that mixed-ethnicity households are more likely to live in houses with damp. Exposure to damp and mould can cause serious illnesses or worse, as we saw with the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Given these inequalities, my constituents are disproportionately impacted by poor housing. Housing is a critical issue for my constituents, and takes up nearly 30% of all casework sent to me.
Housing in our area has become unaffordable and inaccessible, and is in poor condition. Outside the private rented sector, 28.5% of households in Manchester live in social rented homes—one of the highest rates for authorities outside London. I will continue to work with housing associations to ensure that all my constituents are in good-quality social housing. Being on the waiting list for social housing can take years, denying access to families and individuals in desperate need. I thank Manchester city council for being proactive in investing in even more social housing across my constituency so that everyone can live a healthier life.
I have outlined the disparities in local environments, employment and housing, and their impacts on both individual health and community health. On the back of that, I know my colleagues will agree that where someone lives should not determine how long they live, but in Manchester Rusholme we have the 19th lowest life expectancy of all constituencies, at 77.2 years—seven years lower than the figure for the healthiest communities. This large disparity is unacceptable and truly highlights the problem facing the constituency. It acts as a motivator for me to improve community health in any way possible.
The wider health inequalities seen across the UK are also detrimental for my constituents in Manchester Rusholme. For example, women in my constituency are suffering due to regional inequalities; women in the north-west are less likely to be treated for mental health conditions than those in other regions, as there is a gap in treatment based on where people live. In Manchester, black, Asian and minority ethnic communities were disproportionately impacted by the covid pandemic. We know that many mental and physical health impacts have been proven to be caused by discrimination.
We cannot deny the increasing pressure of the mental health crisis in Manchester. Hospital admissions for mental health conditions have increased among those aged under 18, as have mental health absences from work. Looking at the health of our communities should first involve looking at the health of residents. Addressing health inequalities is crucial to wider community health, and I thank the Caribbean and African Health Network and the neighbourhood health champions for their hard work in this area. As the Darzi review outlined, vital health disparities exist in almost all aspects of care due to the impact of poverty and homelessness, and disparities between ethnicities and for those with learning disabilities. We must act urgently to ensure that no one is left behind, and that our health service and the factors contributing to our health are equitable.
Our local community greatly determines our overall health and wellbeing, as well as that of wider society, but poor standards in health, the environment, work and housing detract from that wellbeing. The impact of these issues on households cannot be overstated, and quality of life cannot remain a postcode lottery. I thank all the charities, organisations and volunteers in my constituency for working to improve our community health, but the weight of improving wellbeing for the constituents of Manchester Rusholme cannot rest solely on their shoulders. I am therefore calling for a cross-governmental community health strategy to tackle the unequal access to a good quality of life through health, local environments, housing and standards of work. I am interested to hear the Labour Government long-term plans to ensure that everyone can live happier and healthier lives. We have an opportunity and a duty to protect our local communities, and to encourage them to prosper and flourish, as they have so much to offer.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) on securing this important debate. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to pay tribute to some of the stellar charities that are working to reduce health inequalities: the Health Foundation, which is leading the way with its Health Equals mission; the People’s Health Trust, which is providing funding and support to left-behind communities; and the BHA for Equality, which was founded in 1990 to address the lack of quality information and services for black communities in Manchester.
I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Public Health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—but I am more than happy to take this debate because I recognise many of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme mentioned from my own constituency. I am responding not just on behalf of the Government, but as an MP from a constituency with some of the highest levels of deprivation in the United Kingdom.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the levels of inequality between the better-off and worse-off in our country are a national scandal. Fourteen years of austerity measures and stagnant wages have disproportionately affected lower-income households, exacerbating both income and regional disparities. Places such as Manchester and Port Talbot have borne the brunt. The life expectancy for Mancunian men and women is significantly worse compared with their compatriots in the rest of England. A baby boy born in the Manchester royal infirmary can expect to live for just over 75 years, which is four years less than the English average. A baby girl born in Manchester can expect to live to the age of about 79 and a half, which is also four years less than in England as a whole.
My hon. Friend raises some issues that are not within my Department’s remit, including housing, knife crime and fly-tipping, but I completely understand why he has done so, because the determinants of ill health are wide and it is much more than a single factor that predicts healthy life expectancy. The Government know that we cannot address the challenges we face in the north-west with each Department in Whitehall siloed one from another, so we are taking a whole-of-Government approach to tackling inequalities through our health mission. That is chaired by the Prime Minister, who is lending his weight and authority from the centre of Government.
We have a laser focus on addressing the social determinants of health in a truly strategic way, and addressing the wider determinants of health to improve healthy life expectancy for all, while halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between different regions of England. We are prioritising prevention, shifting more care into the community and intervening earlier in life to raise the healthiest generation of children in our history. Addressing healthcare inequity is a core focus of our 10-year health plan to ensure that the NHS is there for anyone who needs it whenever they need it. We have established 11 working groups to take forward policy development that will feed into the plan. That includes working groups focused on how care should be designed and delivered to improve healthcare equity, alongside ensuring that access to healthcare services is effective and responsive. We look forward to updating the House once the plan is published in June.
Proximity to fast food outlets is strongly associated with obesity. Kids living in the most deprived communities are in proximity to twice the number of fast food outlets compared with wealthier areas. Nearly 3,500 schools across the country now have a major food outlet within 400 metres; that is 1,000 more schools than 10 years ago.
We have an outstanding mayor in Andy Burnham. Devolution gives him and other leaders in Greater Manchester the freedom and flexibility to set priorities locally. In December, the Government published the revised national planning policy framework for local authorities, which gave them stronger, clearer powers to block new fast food outlets near schools and where young people gather. This will stop the relentless targeting of children and young people by the fast food industry.
I am delighted that just last week, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill passed its Second Reading in the other place. Smoking is a scourge on deprived communities and contributes to poverty, ill health and a lower life expectancy. Britain is leading the world through landmark legislation to break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage by gradually ending the sale of tobacco products across the country. The Bill contains powers to extend the ban on smoking indoors to certain outdoor settings to reduce the harms of second-hand smoking, particularly around children and vulnerable people.
Over the past 14 years, a two-tier health system has emerged in our country. People who can afford it are increasingly going private to skip the queue, while those who cannot are left behind. We are determined to end two-tier healthcare in this country, so whether someone is the richest or the poorest person in Manchester, they get timely, quality treatment that is free at the point of use. Our elective reform plan will see more NHS patients able to choose to be treated in a private hospital, where there is capacity, paid for by the state. More capacity will be available for people in working-class areas of the country and for women stuck on waiting lists for gynaecological care. Where we can treat working people faster, we will, and we will make no apology for doing so—working-class patients in this country deserve the same choice, control and convenience as the wealthy expect—and I am delighted that waiting lists have been falling now for six months in a row.
The previous Labour Government did so much to reduce inequality: lifting millions of children out of poverty through Sure Start; giving a lifeline to working families through child tax credits; creating the minimum wage; and fixing the NHS after almost two decades of under-investment. It is a matter of profound regret that so much of that legacy has been undone over the past 14 years, but the people of Manchester don’t just want us to look back in anger; they want us to get on with the job of building homes, fixing the NHS and putting more money in people’s pockets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has spoken about the “class ceiling” that prevents children from getting ahead. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme to shatter the class ceiling that hangs above his constituency and mine.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (VERSION 2)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Forensic Science Regulator draft Code of Practice 2025 (Version 2).
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Sir Desmond. Upholding quality standards in forensic science is vital to securing and maintaining confidence in criminal justice outcomes. Our missions to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system depend on the timely delivery of high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. We also intend to consult on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw on, in order to raise standards and improve efficiency.
When in opposition, the Labour party fully supported the then Government in passing the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, which established the regulator as a statutory office holder and allows them to take action when they have reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. The Act also requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice that formally defines which forensic science activities will be regulated and sets out the standards that providers will be expected to meet. The code sets out the required standards of conduct and practice for forensic science providers, including the requirements for quality-management systems. It also provides definitions of forensic science activities and states which activities the code applies to.
The first version of the code came into force in October 2023, and was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. Due to the novelty of the new statutory requirements, the regulator considered it prudent to anticipate a second version a year on from the first coming into force. As a result, a consultation on version 2 of the code was launched in early 2024. During the initial consultation approximately 1,230 comments were received from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Law enforcement made up 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups and others across the forensics community.
Version 2 of the code represents another significant milestone in the ongoing journey to enhance the integrity, reliability and effectiveness of forensic science in England and Wales. Most of the changes in version 2 are minor and technical, and clarify existing provisions. The changes address practical issues that arose when the first version of the code was implemented.
The most significant change in version 2 relates to the regulation of incident-scene examination. Many forensic stakeholders, including chief police officers and others in law enforcement, raised concerns with the regulator regarding the effectiveness of the requirements set out in version 1. As a result, version 2 streamlines the compliance process for crime-scene examination by requiring a corporate approach by each police organisation, and therefore avoids what was seen as unnecessary replication across the 149 sites where individual sites are currently assessed.
The new requirements for crime-scene examination in the code will ensure that a risk-based and proportionate approach is taken to regulation. The regulator believes this will save significant police staffing hours. The new requirements set out in version 2 of the code have widespread support among forensic practitioners, forensic leaders and chief police officers, and should lead to significant cost savings for policing. The new iteration of the code will continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and help to guard against miscarriages of justice.
Finally, I put on the record my thanks to the UK’s hard-working police and forensic scientists, who do an excellent job of delivering vital services every day. I commend the draft code of practice to the Committee.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
I welcome the measures put forward by the Government. The changes are necessary to ensure that standards are upheld while allowing for streamlined updates to the process. The 2011 Act was a necessary step in providing a statutory footing for the regulator, following the recommendations of several separate reviews and reports that advocated that. It is important to ensure that the code corresponds with the reality experienced by forensic science providers, which means making alterations and recognising the need to support some of the changes outlined in the draft code. For example, the change highlighted by the Government—to avoid duplicating procedures relating to the quality-management systems operated by provider organisations—appears to be a proportionate and appropriate alteration. No longer requiring individual assessments or accreditation for each department is a step that should be widely supported.
The changes in the draft code are significant, which is why it is important that the Government have listened to a range of stakeholders. There is no point in pretending that I or the Minister are well versed in the day-to-day experiences of forensic science providers. The long-running consultation launched by the previous Government, and subsequent targeted consultations, appear to have reflected the voices of those in the field. Moving forward, we must ensure that the regulatory burden is appropriately set. The enabling legislation is clear in its requirement that the regulator should keep the code under review.
Will the Minister outline whether there have been discussions with the regulator about assessing the changes, including whether cost avoidance occurs in practice? Will she clarify whether she is confident that the transitional period up to 30 October will be sufficient to accommodate the changes for micro and small businesses? As I stated at the start of my speech, the Opposition welcome the measures.
Dame Diana Johnson
I very much welcome the shadow Minister’s comments, and recognise the cross-party support for this work.
It is important that stakeholders have been listened to. Having the consultation over a considerable period of time was helpful in allowing everyone to put forward their views. I take the hon. Lady’s point about keeping the regulatory burden under review, and also her point about the transitional period. I am of the view that it is a good transitional period, but if issues are raised that cannot be dealt with by October, I am sure we can look at it again. Given the hon. Lady’s comments, there seems to be cross-party support for the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Let me begin by declaring an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—I am keen to ensure that that is achieved sooner rather than later.
The petition, entitled,
“Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”,
was created by Maria Iriart, and as of today has almost 236,000 signatures, which is an incredible achievement. Maria is here today, and I thank her for coming along. The petition goes on to say:
“As a first step to end animal testing, we want an immediate ban for dogs. They are commercially bred in what we see as bleak and inhumane factory-like conditions. We believe there is evidence suggesting that dogs are left being unattended for extended periods in a Government-licenced establishment.
In 2023, 2,456 dogs were used in 3,749 scientific procedures, 734 were classified as causing severe or moderate harm. There were 2,593 procedures for regulatory purposes even though there is no UK legislation that mandates animal testing. These procedures can include oral gavage, when a tube is inserted into the dog’s throat, up to 3 times a day, to administer liquids to the stomach. There are studies questioning the reliability and human-relevant value of the outcomes of these tests.”
When looking at Hansard for other debates on animal testing—particularly testing on dogs—I found an interesting starting point in a debate in 1927 on the Protection of Dogs Bill. In that debate from almost a century ago, Lord Banbury was mentioned as quoting the eminent surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby, who said:
“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]
Yet, here we are, nearly 100 years later, discussing the very same issue.
An opinion poll conducted for the UK Government by Ipsos MORI in 2018 found that only 14% of the UK public feel that it is acceptable to use dogs for medical research to benefit people. This is unsurprising, as we know that dogs have high emotional and intellectual capabilities, and studies have found that they can feel empathy, sense sadness or fear and demonstrate genuine human bonding.
The UK Home Office regulator is intended to conduct assessments of the compliance of all licence holders, including on-site inspections, and enforces standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. To enforce the regulations, establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including vets, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, as well as an ethical review body.
The Government responded to the petition on 5 March 2025 to clarify that they do not agree to immediately ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. However, hopefully this debate will reignite that discussion and subsequent decisions.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I was visited by my constituent Clara, who brought this issue to my attention, and I was keen to participate in today’s debate. My hon. Friend has made two important points: one of which is that this process has no legislative basis and no public consent. I therefore hope that, when the Government listen to this debate, we can look at how to take action to ensure that man’s best friend is left alone as man’s best friend.
Irene Campbell
I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
It is important to note that the Labour manifesto pledge commits the Government to
“partner with scientists, industry, and civil society”
to phase out animals in medical testing. The Government also state:
“This is a long-term goal, and it will need further scientific and technical advancement and validation to reach this point”.
The group Understanding Animal Research supports the use of animal research currently in the UK. It says:
“In the UK, dogs are primarily used to find out how new drugs act within a whole, living body and whether new medicines are safe enough to test in humans…Their genome has been sequenced and…they are often used in genetic studies…Dogs are primarily used in regulatory research”
and as a secondary species, alongside rodents. The dogs are mostly tested for areas such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, anti-rabies vaccines, heart research and veterinary medicine. Understanding Animal Research also states:
“Research dogs live in large enclosures together with their pack mates. Lab technicians look after the dogs and play with them every day. The dogs are fed and watered daily, and the environment (lights, temperature etc.) is controlled automatically. The cages are cleaned daily, and the space is big enough to have a toilet area separate from the bed and play area. Dogs are intelligent enough to keep these areas separate, and there’s plenty of space to allow them to do so. Because the dogs live together, their social needs are met by other dogs. Unlike pets, they do not require the constant company of humans.”
However, Animal Free Research UK disputes that quality of care and says:
“Applications for project licences to conduct animal experiments are very rarely refused. Answers to Written Questions”—
submitted in Parliament—
“indicate that over the past seven years, only one licence application has been rejected.”
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. This morning I met Nutmeg, a lovely beagle. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a large proportion of the dogs who undergo medical scientific procedures are beagles—I believe 3,565 out of 3,770? Does she also agree that, if the Government will not commit right now to an immediate ban, we must at least have a clear timeframe for when such a ban may come into place?
Irene Campbell
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Animal Research UK continued:
“Applicants are allowed to adjust and re-submit licence applications to enable them to be granted (for the last four years applications had a mean number of 2.55 iterations before they were granted).”
The Animals in Science Regulation Unit’s 2023 annual report stated that there were 169 cases of non-compliance with the law or licence conditions—only a 3% decrease from 2022. Those cases involved a total of 154,904 animals, representing an overwhelming 864% increase on 2022.
Beagles were used in a study conducted by AstraZeneca to test a new, more eco-friendly propellant for use in inhalers. The tests lasted up to 39 weeks and involved 72 beagles. The dogs were restrained by a tether and forced to inhale the gas for two hours each day through a mask fitted over their nose and mouth, which was held in place by a muzzle. Although the study states that the dogs had freely available access to water, it also states that water was withheld during the tests and for 16 hours overnight. That meant that the dogs went without water for at least 18 hours each day. At the end of the study, all the dogs were killed so that their tissues could be dissected for further study. The authors noted that the inhalers contribute only a small fraction of global hydrofluoroalkane emissions, so was that treatment of the dogs really justified?
In 2017, the Home Office released figures showing the 1.81 million additional animals were bred but not used for scientific procedures in Britain, but we had no additional data since then. Those 1.81 million animals included 97 beagles, but we have no idea what happened to those that were not used.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
We are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread public support for setting out a road map for ending the use of animal testing, so that the very sad stories that she is describing can be left in the history books, where they belong?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree, and I will speak a little about that later.
Modern, non-animal methods give the best possible chance of securing medical progress, since they are not hampered by translating from one species to another. An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they had passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Just over 30% of those that pass are subsequently re-labelled with warnings of side effects not predicted by animal tests, and almost 10% are completely withdrawn from the market.
New non-animal methods, based directly on human biology, include the use of computer modelling and organ-on-a-chip technology, which can be much more relevant to the human body. I went on lab trip recently with the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research to visit the Animal Replacement Centre of Excellence at Queen Mary University of London, and I saw in person the pioneering work that is being done to provide medical breakthroughs without the use of animals.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the scientific possibility of non-animal alternatives and what is happening on the ground? For decades, there have been suggestions of ways that we can use non-animal alternatives, yet we are not using them. Will she also commend the work of Cruelty Free International, which is producing a new list that explains exactly how we could switch from one type of experiment to the other?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I will speak about that in a minute.
A study published in Communications Medicine found that the non-animal liver-on-a-chip device was able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that carried a risk of liver toxicity in humans, despite having passed through animal safety tests. Another example is research at Edge Hill University, where scientists are developing a human cell model of the blood-brain barrier to study the link between irregular heartbeat and an increased risk of brain damage, stroke and dementia. Normally, large animals such as dogs would be used to study heart disease. This work will be relevant to patients and will provide a real case for phasing out testing on dogs.
Comprehensive analysis in a paper authored by Dr Jarrod Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound should proceed to testing on humans, the predictions that dogs can provide are little better than those that could be obtained by chance or tossing a coin. A simple example is that some foods, such as grapes and chocolate, are poisonous to dogs, and some drugs that are safe for humans, such as ibuprofen, are highly toxic to dogs, even in small doses.
Animals are used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, yet although we share up to 98% of our DNA with some animals, the small yet important differences make us distinct. There are many historical examples of deadly drugs that appeared safe in animal tests: thalidomide was tested safely on animals, but caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies, and the painkiller Vioxx was linked to thousands of heart attacks and deaths, despite cardio-protective results obtained in animal tests, including on dogs.
The current approach to alternatives to animal testing is to fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—more commonly known as the three Rs. However—in relation to the point made earlier—there is little funding for non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding
“represents between 0.2% and 0.6% of total biomedical research funding in the UK and ~0.02% of the total public expenditure…on R&D.”
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
On that point, the previous Government committed to doubling investment in this area. Would my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the current Government matching that, if not improving on it?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree.
Surely, we must consider reversing our priorities. This debate provides us with a prime opportunity to look at how to fund future testing in the UK. In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed:
“There is no United Kingdom legislation that mandates animal testing.”
The regulatory guidelines do recommend that new drugs are tested on two species before moving to human trials, but the Department also stated that assessors will accept
“data from a suitably validated model that has been demonstrated to be predictive…in lieu of animal data.”
So it is possible. In 2023, almost all regulatory tests on dogs were carried out to satisfy EU requirements, and only 12 were carried out to satisfy UK-only requirements. Cruelty Free International reports that animal tests continue to be commonly used even when validated alternatives exist.
In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has released a new road map to reduce and replace animal testing in drug development and regulation, following the 2022 decision by the US Congress to pass the FDA Modernisation Act, which facilitates the use of non-animal methods for drug testing. On 10 April this year, the FDA announced that it is beginning to phase out animal testing for monoclonal antibody therapies, which will ultimately be followed by other drugs. Canada, Australia and European Union countries have all come up with road maps for ending animal testing; it really is high time for the UK to join them.
For the Government to stop issuing licences for experiments using dogs there must be a thorough overhaul of the licensing of animal experiments to ensure that the basic legal requirements to use non-animal methods wherever possible are properly enforced. Ending the use of dogs can be the first step in full transition to the cutting-edge human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress.
As I close, I want to mention this morning’s Radio 4 “Today” programme, where Understanding Animal Research and Cruelty Free International discussed this debate. A question asked during the interview was about what happens to dogs after the research. It was confirmed that they are euthanised and dissected to look at their lived experience. Strangely, after that hard-hitting discussion on the lives of laboratory dogs in the “Today” interview, just after the 9 am news the announcer advised that the programme coming up at 9.45 am, called “Wheels and woofs”, would look at disabled dogs living their best lives—something that a laboratory dog will never get to do. I look forward to hearing from other Members and to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call John Milne.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to speak in this very important debate. Every year, thousands of dogs are subjected to scientific experiments in the UK, often in the name of drug development. For many this raises serious ethical questions about the use of animals for human gain. Is an animal’s suffering worth the benefits to scientific discovery? For others, science and not the animals are paramount; the end justifies the means, as it were. However, animal testing does not deliver robust and useful scientific data. In fact, drug research on dogs tells us very little about whether a drug will work for humans, so campaigners argue that it is time to end animal research.
Dr Jarrod Bailey, a geneticist, put it plainly: different species react differently to diseases and treatments. In other words, what works in dogs might not work in humans. In fact, drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials 92% of the time—a staggering and costly statistic. In toxicity testing, even when dogs show no toxic response it barely improves our confidence that the drug will be safe in humans. It improves it from 70% to just 72%, which is barely noticeable. Is that really a sound basis for human medicine?
Fortunately, science offers us a better path forward. Human-specific technologies such as organ chips are revolutionising drug development. Those miniaturised organs mimic how real human organs react to treatments and can be patient-specific. They have shown 87% accuracy in detecting drug-induced liver toxicity, which is a dramatic improvement over animal models. If adopted widely, these tools could create over $24 billion through research and development in the US. The US Food and Drug Administration has recognised that. Through the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0, the agency has removed the legal requirement for animal testing in drug trials. A third Act is already in the works to accelerate the validation and adoption of human-specific methods such as organ chips.
In the UK we are lagging behind, not because of legal barriers, but perhaps because of entrenched industry habits, financial interests or even cultural resistance in the research community. We can change that—gradually, responsibly and strategically. I am calling for a phased approach to end the use of dogs in UK research. That means increased investment in modern human-relevant alternatives and a national commitment to shifting away from outdated animal models. When the practice of animal testing is scientifically flawed, it is also undeniably ethically indefensible. Animal suffering for unreliable and inapplicable data cannot be justified when we have the tools and knowledge to do better. Let the UK be a leader, not a follower, in creating a more humane and effective future for our scientific research.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this petition and the 478 Exeter residents who have signed it.
I will speak in support of phasing out the use of dogs in medical research, because the scientific case for change is now overwhelming. Members may know that I have a private Member’s Bill—the Animals in Medical Research (Prohibition) Bill—on phasing out the use of animals in medical research, and I very much support the petition. My Bill is the first of its kind to be laid before Parliament, and I am proud to bring it to the House.
I approach this topic from a position of scientific rigour. It is clear that the use of animals in medical research does not necessarily offer the best scientific basis for medicines testing. According to Animal Free Research UK, more than 92% of drugs that pass animal tests, including tests on dogs, go on to fail in human trials. That is an extraordinary figure and means that, far from protecting human health, animal testing is giving us a false sense of security and can slow down medicines development. It is inefficient and it is generating bad science. Animal trials often fail to identify side effects in humans, for example. Although dogs are closer to humans than rodents are, they are still fundamentally different from us in key biological ways. Comprehensive analysis has found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans; it can be no better than tossing a coin.
Crucially, there is no law saying we must use dogs. As has been said, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed in 2023 that, while international guidelines suggest testing on two species, including dogs is not a legal requirement. We continue largely out of habit, not necessity; when I asked some of our larger pharma companies whether they have a strategy for reducing the use of animal testing and experimentation overall, some said that there is no strategy, but that they do have some principles. It is clear that the Government need to act in this space.
We have better options. Cutting-edge methods such as organ-on-a-chip technology and 3D human tissue models, supplemented by the use of AI-enabled modelling, are far more accurate in predicting how drugs will behave in people. Investing in such technologies would make drug development faster, safer and ultimately far more effective. I have seen for myself how the techniques can be applied to science. In Exeter, we have an Animal Free Research UK centre of excellence at our research, innovation, learning and development centre, jointly operated by a hospital trust and the University of Exeter. Those researchers excel in using animal-free methods in scientific exploration—specifically on cell ageing, which has already generated several start-up companies out of that centre. That is cutting-edge science; this is exactly where we ought to be as a country. Investing in such areas of science, instead of relying on old methods involving millions of animals every year, will mean that the UK can lead the world in this area of scientific innovation.
Indeed, the UK may already be falling behind internationally, which is a travesty for a nation of animal lovers. In April, as has been said, the US FDA announced it would move away from animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs, which would be replaced
“with more effective, human-relevant methods.”
The FDA went on to state:
“The new approach is designed to improve drug safety and accelerate the evaluation process, while reducing animal experimentation, lowering research and development (R&D) costs, and ultimately, drug prices.”
One reason the FDA gives for that move is to provide global leadership in regulatory science, in which it
“reaffirms its role as a global leader in modern regulatory science, setting new standards for the industry and encouraging the adoption of innovative, humane testing methods.”
There we go: if the US can move in that direction, it is imperative that the UK does so too. Our life sciences sector simply should not be left behind in cutting-edge science.
My private Member’s Bill is based on the campaign for Herbie’s law, which offers a clear, responsible plan to phase out the use of dogs and other animals over the next decade. It is a measured but vital step towards a future where science serves both human health and humane values. I commend the Science Minister, Lord Vallance, for meeting me and others to set out his work in this area, particularly the ongoing development of a strategy document that, I understand, is set to be published soon and will set out a road map for phasing out animal testing in medical research where possible. That strategy is long overdue and is evidence, I hope, that this Labour Government take this issue seriously. I encourage the Minister and the Government to choose progress. Let us choose science that actually works for patients, for innovation and for compassion.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the petitioners for securing this important debate, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her excellent opening remarks. I am delighted to see so many Members from her party here to support her; I rise as a Member of an opposition party, but as a member of the APPG I fully support her position. I regret that apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), there is no one from the Conservative party in the Chamber. I would not dare suggest that they are not dog lovers—perhaps they are out walking their dogs on this beautiful day.
My wife and I share our home with Lola, our beautiful cockapoo. I say share—I would not dare say that we owned her. We share our home. We just spent Easter ensuring that she did not make off with any of our chocolate Easter eggs; I know they are a guilty pleasure of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. Along with the 50% of families across these islands who have pets, I can readily see the contradiction in medical experimentation on dogs when so many of us understand the love, intelligence and friendship that our pet dogs bring to our lives—yet we seem content to inflict great suffering on them.
As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, many comprehensive studies demonstrate that experiments on animals, including dogs, cannot accurately and fully predict whether new drugs will be safe for humans. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, statistics for 2023 tell us that 3,749 procedures were conducted on dogs in laboratories, 69% of which were to test the safety of products and devices for human medicine, human dentistry and veterinary medicine. However, as there is a huge question mark over the reliability of the tests and the human relevance of their outcomes, it is understandable that there is massive support for the banning of experimentation on dogs in the UK. In fact, not a month goes by where I so not receive emails on that topic in my inbox.
The Labour Government have confirmed that they aim to phase out animal testing and will publish proposals later this year, I believe, but they have not committed to an immediate ban on the use of dogs, which is what the petition calls for. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Some exciting—no, amazing—work in this field is happening in the UK, and it needs to be supported and celebrated.
As a member of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I recently visited Animal Free Research UK’s animal replacement centre of excellence at the Blizzard institute at Queen Mary University of London to learn more about its groundbreaking work into how cancer spreads using animal-free methods. Doctors showed us how they are revolutionising human skin testing, which is already providing better results for patients without using animals, as well as the development of animal-free next generation 3D tissues and disease models for use in biomedical research. In other words, they grow the tissue in the lab, and they do not need to use dogs.
Other truly transformative animal-free methods are available, for example, using computer modelling, which can provide results directly relevant to humans. Herbie’s law, as recommended by Animal Free Research UK, argues for a decade of change, and would mandate the replacement of animals in medical research in the UK by 2035, replacing them with humane, effective alternatives. There is support for that from within the Labour party, largely thanks to the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) and his private Member’s Bill.
When the UK Government say that they are partnering with scientists, industry and civic society in working towards phasing out animal testing, I hope they will also consult with animal protection groups on that goal. The Government have also agreed to publish an alternative methods strategy to support phasing out animal testing, so I hope they will read up on Herbie’s law in that process, ahead of publication later this year.
If the Government’s goal, however, is to be at the forefront of an alternative methods revolution, bringing in a commitment to a ban on experiments on dogs would send a clear signal of intent and be a major milestone in the important phasing out of animal testing. That does not need to happen in 10 years—or even in five. This Government could commit to the full implementation of Herbie’s law by the end of this Parliament.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank all the petitioners and the people of Swindon North who have signed it, as well as the growing number of citizens across the UK who believe that dogs should not be used in science. We are a country of animal lovers; we love our dogs; and we are going past a point where they should be used for experiments. Some may argue that dogs have a similar biology to humans, but there is still no guarantee of accurate data. Putting it simply, it is not worth the risk. Dogs do not have their own voice, so it is up to us to speak for them.
Personally, I would like to see a future using AI technologies such as organ on a chip, which can mimic the structures and functions of human tissues or organs in the lab, and virtual models that are changing how we do medical research. They are already helping to reduce the need for animals in testing and, in some cases, starting to replace them fully.
AI systems now allow researchers to track animal behaviour more precisely, which is reducing the number of animals required to extract more meaningful data. In the United States, the FDA has already begun to phase out animal testing, replacing it with more human-relevant models such as AI-driven toxicity screening and organoids. I think it is a rule of thumb that, if the United States is starting to do better in animal welfare than us, we probably need to take a hard look in the mirror, because something has gone wrong.
The UK cannot afford to fall behind on this. We have a chance to be a world leader. We have a chance to excel in AI and to boom off its growth. AI technology still requires trials and testing before it can be officially approved. However, when the health and lives of dogs are on the line, is it really fair only to use potential data to make it more accurate? The opportunity for the UK to lead in this field and become a global leader is immense. There is no reason that we as the Government should not push forward and make progress.
Our Government and Labour are keen to accelerate the adoption of non-animal testing methods, and this debate is exactly the mechanism to push that forward. Once again, I thank the people who started this petition and those who have signed it. I hope that the Government listen and start to put an end to and phase out the use of testing on dogs.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank everyone who signed this petition—it is a huge achievement to get a debate here in Parliament—and in particular one of my friends, Steph Jones-Giles, who has been a passionate campaigner for animal-free research for years. She has been contacting me for years about this issue specifically.
My partner Emma and I have a dog called Frank. He is quite an unusual-looking dog. He is a pug cross border terrier, and he is 15 years old today—I have had an update of him in Pets at Home, choosing his new toy. Thankfully, in 15 years, he has not worked out that I am a vet, because he hates going to the vet—he has no idea. I should also point out that Jennie, who is present today, the guide dog for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), had her sixth birthday just last week.
My reason for bringing that up is that no one thinks it is stupid to celebrate a dog’s birthday. We know that dogs have the same range of emotions that people do. We also know that they are—well, I was going to say “hugely intelligent”, but hon. Members have not met Frank—relatively intelligent, and we certainly know that they feel pain, need to have social interaction, just like us, and need the freedom to express natural behaviour.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I share a love of dogs with my hon. Friend, and I have a nearly 17-year-old terrier at home—slightly better looking than Frank, I might add. The level of public interest in this petition is vast—many of my constituents have spoken to me strongly about it—and that shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the transposition of the principle of animal sentience into British law is an essential step in ensuring that the UK retains the highest animal welfare standards in the future?
Dr Chambers
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, which was going to be my next one. It is completely accurate. The veterinary profession has been extremely concerned by the lack of recognition of animal sentience in law. We urge the Government to change that as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend said that Frank was ugly.
Dr Chambers
He is unique; he is a pug cross border terrier. He has a strange underbite and quite buggy eyes. We were at our friend’s house for dinner recently, and one of their children said, “Frank’s really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that because he might’ve been in an accident.”
I would like to introduce the concept of one health, which many people will have heard of. It is the fact that human and animal health are completely interlinked, whether we are talking about antimicrobial resistance, risk of pandemics, food security or climate change. There is also the concept of one medicine, which has been driven forward by the Humanimal Trust, based primarily on the work of academics at the University of Surrey’s school of veterinary medicine. We are really pushing not only for animal experimentation to be reduced, refined and replaced by other methods, such as those that hon. Members have mentioned today, but to ensure that when these tests are carried out, humans and animals can benefit from the information gathered.
For example, if a drug passes animal trials and then passes human trials, it still does not have a licence for animals, even when we know that the drug worked in those animal trials. It is often cost-prohibitive for companies to then carry out the further trials to produce the body of evidence needed to get the licence for animals. Equally, if a drug passes animal trials but fails human trials, there should be a quick and easy way to make it available for veterinary use, so that the animals that have had to endure experimentation and suffering can also benefit.
I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats, in the coalition, were involved in stopping the testing of household products on animals. I know that that meant a huge amount not only to the veterinary profession, but to all dog and animal owners. I would appreciate a meeting with the Minister—perhaps with the Humanimal Trust and academics from the University of Surrey’s vet school—to talk about how we can improve the benefit to animals from drug testing and the other types of testing, such as medical and joint implants, that are being carried out. We want to ensure that companies and academics can, as easily as possible, get licences for the drugs to be used on animals so that they can benefit from them as well.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell). I am honoured to be Bournemouth East’s Member of Parliament, representing the issues that matter to my town, and dog welfare is an important one. Bournemouth is a town of dog lovers: we care deeply about the safety of dogs. As a dog lover, it is upsetting that laboratories across the country experiment on dogs and defend their methods as being in the public interest. It is not in the public interest to harm dogs, nor is it good science. Animal testing is poor science, plain and simple. We must start treating man’s best friend better. As the Labour MP for Bournemouth East, I will always stand up for animals because they do not have a voice, and I will always stand up for dog lovers because they rightly use their voice to promote animal welfare. It is time for change, and that means legislation to end the use of dogs in scientific experiments. I support Herbie’s law.
In a time of heated debate, I think we can all agree on one fundamental point: dogs are brilliant. With that in mind, we need to do more. I want to thank, in my constituency, Cara and Linda in Muscliff, Jane in Pokesdown, Vanessa in Southbourne and Kate in Charminster for sharing their important views on this issue. As Kate says, every minute, five animals are suffering in experiments in British laboratories, even when non-animal are often cheaper and more reliable.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could add to his thanks list Lorna Harries, the professor of molecular genetics at the University of Exeter, who has pioneered alternative approaches that can replace some of the experimental techniques that have been used on dogs.
Tom Hayes
I agree; the voices of scientific experts in this area are critical, and I welcome his intervention.
I thank everyone from my constituency who has contacted me about this important issue, including the 336 constituents who signed the petition. I also thank animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA on Richmond Park Road in my constituency, and Every Paw Matters, which I have spent time with.
In fact, we are such a town of dog lovers that the 110th mayor, Councillor George Farquhar, and his wife Alison, have rescued a greyhound called Billy and now have him as the official non-human consort of the mayor. Billy will wear a wrap that says “My human votes Labour” when it is election time, but when he is serving as the non-human consort, he will happily just wear a replica chain. That shows just how much Bournemouth loves dogs—[Laughter.] That is the right response.
To anyone who says we need dog testing, they are wrong. Dogs are most commonly used in secondary species testing, where, after a test happens on a mouse or a rat, researchers do a secondary test on another species, which is often a dog. But the industry says that secondary species testing is unnecessary. We know that non-animal methods can be much more accurate than using animal experiments.
I commend other leading voices in this field, including the local business Lush, which is based in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and which shows how we can do better through science. Lush has never tested on animals since its doors opened in 1995, and it has funded over £2.7 million in research and science to end animal testing. It has an annual prize to reward scientists and educators who use non-animal methods and contribute to important scientific breakthroughs. It is truly leading the way.
There are things that the Government could do in the immediate term and the short term. It is wrong that so few inspectors are looking at over 3 million-plus procedures. The industry is marking its own homework. In the immediate term, we need more inspectors. We need a ban on secondary species testing, and exclusive reliance on non-animal research methods. In the short term, we need legislation that fully protects animals.
As a national of animal lovers, we are falling behind. The UK was the first country to create animal protection laws in 1822. We were the first to set up an animal welfare charity—the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The European Union is moving further and faster away from the UK in tackling these cruel experiments on animals and dogs. We must catch up.
No other party has such a strong track record of protecting animals. I am proud to sit in a tradition that includes Keir Hardie, who died in 1915 carrying a pocket watch bitten by a favourite pit pony, having done much to secure better conditions for pit ponies. For our Labour Government, this should be unfinished business. Labour banned the cruel practice of hunting with dogs, and it banned deer hunting and hare coursing. It protected pets, livestock and wild animals, and combated international trade in animal products from any endangered species. It brought in a ban on the use of veal crates in the UK, banned fur farming and created the principle of a duty of care to meet welfare needs. Labour made it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting. Labour banned cosmetic product testing on animals.
We passed the most comprehensive reform of animal welfare law in over a century. The last Labour Government stood up for animals. Starting with the provision of a right to have pets inside the rented household, we are back on track. However, back in power after 14 years, this Labour Government could go further. We can truly protect dogs and animals once again.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. In Newport West and Islwyn, 562 of my constituents have signed this petition. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important issue this afternoon, and to demonstrate, especially to those in the Public Gallery, that Members in this place are really listening and working on their behalf.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to the exceptional animal welfare charities, including, but not limited to, the RSPCA, Naturewatch Foundation, PETA, Animal Free Research UK, Replacing Animal Research and Cruelty Free International. Their vital work to brief MPs about key issues and campaigns, and to provide us with facts and figures, equips us to make representations in this place on behalf of animals. As we know, and as I always say, we must speak up for animals, because they cannot speak up for themselves.
As we have heard, in 2023 there were a total of 3,770 uses of dogs in scientific procedures. I am deeply concerned about the use, and the potential suffering, of any animal in research and testing. I firmly believe that the ultimate goal should be the total replacement of all animal experiments with humane alternatives, and I would like to see a diversion of existing funding, resources and expertise away from animal experiments.
I hope that this debate will encourage the consideration of all current uses of animals in science and illustrate the support for achieving faster development and uptake of non-animal technologies. However, as the petition illustrates, the strength of public feeling on this issue is particularly apparent when it comes to dogs, who—as we have already heard from hon. Members—are much-loved members of their families, whether they are ugly, pretty or whatever. That is really important.
I am delighted that this Labour Government have committed to working towards phasing out the use of animal testing. Scientific reviews highlight the inability of data from dogs to predict human response accurately and consistently. With the existence of new and developing cutting-edge technology, we do not need whole-body animal systems to assess chemical and drug safety or to advance our scientific knowledge of diseases. The adoption of non-animal technologies would enable rapid development of novel therapeutics and better safety testing data for the protection of human health. Such an approach has the potential to improve efficiency, speed and prediction for humans while cutting costs and reducing animal suffering. Human-specific approaches such as artificial intelligence, organ on a chip and computer modelling produce results that are much more relevant to people—as ably outlined in this debate.
I, like many others who may be more mature, have had the benefit of seeing the demonstration of these technologies at events in Parliament. It is really important that we actually go and see these technologies for ourselves.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I was horrified when I became aware that dogs could still be force-fed pesticides as part of these proposals. Does the hon. Lady agree that what we need from the Government today—I hope we will hear this from the Minister—is clear dates for an end to testing on dogs and all animals?
Ruth Jones
If the hon. Gentleman had read my speech a little bit further, he would have found that I have some specific questions for the Minister—it is always good to ask specifics.
It is vital that the Government produce and execute ambitious road maps for accelerating the development and uptake of advanced non-animal technologies and new approach methodologies. The UK cannot afford to fall behind other countries that are already delivering on that.
I am delighted that my early-day motion 210, on Herbie’s law, has 49 signatures from hon. Members across the House—there is still time and space, in case anyone is wondering whether they want to sign it. Beagles make up 95% of the dogs used in the sort of animal testing procedures that we have heard about; Herbie’s law, named after a rescued beagle, would provide a practical framework for phasing out animal testing over the next decade and supporting the scientific community with that transition. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) well with his Bill, which is based on Herbie’s law, and I congratulate him on his hard work on this campaign.
I look forward to a comprehensive and ambitious plan from the Government for delivering this transition, and I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to outlining that as she winds up. The petition that inspired this debate today shows the strength of public feeling on this issue, so it is also vital that there is complete transparency in the reporting of statistics around the use of animals.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I am advised by Matthew, a West Dunbartonshire constituent, that animals—including dogs—bred for scientific procedures and not used are omitted from Britain’s annual statistics on animal testing. If true, that means we have no real idea how many animals are used for science overall in Britain. The Home Office estimated back in 2017 that an additional 1.8 million animals were bred and then not used, which is nearly 50% more than our annual official Government figures would suggest. Sadly, apparently those animals either died or were destroyed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of becoming a country or society that does not harm dogs and animals will be more difficult without full transparency?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend makes a vital point; it is all about transparency. At the moment, as he rightly said, the Government do not routinely provide information about the number of animals that are bred for use in scientific procedures, but not used. What happens to those animals later in their lives? Although the EU currently collects and publishes that important data every five years, the UK has not done so since 2017. In Britain, we know that at least a third—my hon. Friend said nearly half—of the total number of animals used in science were bred and not used.
Naturewatch Foundation’s “Forgotten Lives” campaign seeks to highlight the potentially hundreds of thousands of invisible animals who are undisclosed in UK Government figures. This information is vital to improving transparency and allowing for a more accurate assessment of the current impact of science on animals in the UK. Efforts to reduce, and ultimately to replace, the use of animals in scientific procedures will be difficult to measure and evaluate unless statistical data routinely includes all animals used in science.
In closing, I ask the Minister two key questions. First, when will the Government provide a detailed road map about the transition to human-relevant science as part of their commitment to phasing out animal testing? Secondly, when will the Government review the current publication of statistics to ensure accuracy and transparency? Labour is the party of animal welfare; legislation to improve the lives of animals has formed a vital part of the legacies of past Labour Governments, and I look forward to building on that with this Government. Ending the use of dogs must be a first step in the full transition to the cutting-edge, human-specific methods that offer the best possible chance of advancing medical progress. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the topic. This issue resonates deeply with many people across the country, including in my constituency, where the concern for animal welfare is strong and heartfelt. Dogs hold a deeply special place in British life. As someone lucky enough to share my home with one, I know the joy they bring: the quiet comfort, the loyalty and the unconditional love. They are more than pets—they are family.
In 2023, thousands of dogs were used in the UK for experiments. Many were subjected to painful and frightening procedures. In some research labs, dogs have tubes pushed down their throats, sometimes three times a day, to force-feed them chemicals. It is called a procedure—but to dogs, it is just fear and pain. Using dogs in research is not just cruel; it is unreliable. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests still fail when they reach human trials. They either do not work or they are unsafe.
In 2006, a trial in the UK for a new drug meant to treat leukaemia and arthritis had already been tested on monkeys and had not revealed any major side effects. When it was given to healthy human volunteers, however, within hours their bodies went into shock. They were left fighting for their lives and nearly died. That is not just a tragedy, but a warning. Those drugs were tested on animals first, but animal suffering does not prevent human suffering. We cannot keep pretending that what happens in a dog’s body will predict what happens in ours. Time and again, it does not. We need better science.
A growing number of experts now call for a shift towards modern, human-relevant methods such as organ on a chip, 3D bio-printing and advanced computer modelling. Those are not dreams of the future; they are available now, and Britain should be leading the way. We are a nation known for scientific firsts, from the discovery of penicillin to mapping the human genome. We also pride ourselves on being a country of animal lovers. That combination gives us a unique opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world in building a better kind of research.
This issue is not just a fringe concern; it speaks to public values, ethical urgency and a real chance to build science that is not just cutting-edge, but truly humane. The petitioners are looking for better science, kinder choices and British leadership in shaping a more compassionate future, and I welcome this debate.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures is an issue that rightly draws strong public interest, with over 235,000 people signing the petition that we are debating. It is not just a small outcry, but a clear signal that action is needed. Like so many other dogs, my much-loved working cocker spaniel Charlie is a clear example of how sentient and intelligent dogs truly are—and I am sure that he would want me to put on the record today that he is a very handsome dog. I was also thrilled to see Jennie enter the room today. We can feel the response in the room when a dog enters the Chamber. They bring more to our lives.
Dogs form deep emotional bonds, show remarkable sensitivity and learn with incredible ease. As with most dogs, Charlie is not just a pet; he is a member of my family, alongside my two cats, Merlot and Jags—I hesitate to add that I did not name the first cat. It is precisely that connection that makes the idea of using dogs like Charlie in laboratory experiments impossible to justify.
However, the case should not be made only on ethical and emotional grounds, but on the grounds of practicality and scientific validity. A growing body of evidence points to the limited translational value of data from dogs, as we have heard, in predicting human responses to drugs and chemicals. It is particularly concerning when we discover the pace of innovation in non-animal methods, including organ-on-a-chip technology, advanced cell cultures and AI-driven modelling systems. Those approaches are not only more humane, but frequently more accurate and cost-effective, begging the question: why have we not moved on this issue already?
Despite advances in biomedical research, dogs continue to be used in procedures that often cause significant suffering. They may be force-fed substances for toxicity tests, restrained for long periods and ultimately euthanised—as almost every Member has mentioned. Those are not minor interventions; they are often serious intrusions on an animal’s welfare, and they occur even as the scientific merit of such tests is increasingly being questioned.
While the Government have stated their commitment to phasing out animal testing where scientifically possible, many would argue that we have already reached that point, at least in the case of dogs. The infrastructure, knowledge and tools exist; what we now need is the determination to act on them. I understand that regulatory change takes time, but we must be clear in our direction of travel. The continued use of dogs in research is increasingly difficult to defend in the light of alternatives, shifting public opinion and our broader responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, as well as scientific best practice.
We have the opportunity to show leadership on this issue by supporting innovation, upholding ethical standards and responding to the concerns of hundreds of thousands of our constituents. It is time to set a clear path towards ending the use of dogs in research and to invest in alternatives that will define a more humane and modern scientific future.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this debate, and for her masterful analysis of this issue. I also thank the petitioner who raised this critical issue and the 235,000 people who signed it.
This is an issue I care about deeply. I have a dog called Harry, a fox-red labrador and an integral part of our family. I thank him for essentially being my personal trainer, because he runs far faster than me and keeps me fit. I agree with everything that others have said about the high intelligence and emotional sensitivity of dogs.
Many of my Folkestone and Hythe constituents are dog lovers and dog owners. We have miles of beautiful coastline to walk dogs along, and 316 of my constituents have signed the petition. I receive many emails from local people deeply concerned about dogs and other animals being used in testing.
Nationally, the use of dogs in scientific research is relatively rare, accounting for about 0.2% of all animal procedures in Britain, yet in 2023 almost 2,500 dogs were used in nearly 3,750 scientific procedures, with over 700 classified as causing moderate or severe harm to them. Although regulations are supposed to protect laboratory animals, and advances are being made to reduce and refine the use of those animals, as this debate has shown there is growing evidence and public sentiment questioning the reliability, necessity and ethics of subjecting dogs to such procedures, especially when alternative methods are being developed.
Like my colleagues, I believe that this country should be a world leader in ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare. We are seeing rapid advances in AI—I am pleased to see the AI Minister present to answer the debate—that offer powerful and humane alternatives to animal testing involving dogs. Today, AI-driven methods can analyse vast amounts of biological and chemical data to predict accurately how new drugs and chemicals will behave in the human body. As hon. Members have said, those technologies are already being used to identify potential risks and to filter out unsafe compounds before they ever reach an animal or a human trial. The use of this technology would spare countless animals from unnecessary suffering and would also accelerate the pace of scientific discovery and reduce costs. By investing in and embracing AI, we have the opportunity to lead the way towards a future where UK science and compassion go hand in hand, and where the use of animals in research is a thing of the past.
I look forward to reading and analysing the Government’s strategy for developing alternative methods for animal testing, which I believe will be published later this year. I urge the Government, when drawing up that strategy, to engage meaningfully with animal protection groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others, as their experts have played a key role in developing effective and science-driven policies so that we may replace experiments on dogs with superior, humane, non-animal testing here in the UK and across the world.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your authority, Ms Jardine. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to make it clear that, although I am the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I speak in this debate on behalf of my party, and it is a winding-up role.
It has been a very thoughtful and impassioned debate. If you ever wonder, “Do dogs have feelings? Do they have memories? Are they sentient beings?”, you only have to go to Edinburgh to find out—you know what I am talking about, Ms Jardine. If you go to the corner of Candlemaker Row and George IV Bridge, there is a statue of Greyfriars Bobby, who was either a Skye Terrier or a Dandie Dinmont; I am not quite sure which. For 14 whole years, wee Bobby the dog sat by his master’s grave, because Bobby was mourning. Dogs do have feelings.
I too congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her really thoughtful and compassionate leading of this debate. I also congratulate all the other Members who contributed so wisely, constructively and with such care and conviction. And I pay tribute to the petitioners who have brought this vital issue to Parliament’s attention.
It is clear that there is consensus across the House. The use of dogs in scientific testing raises profound ethical, scientific and societal questions, and public concern about the welfare of animals used in experiments is growing, and rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to, those in our party are proud and staunch supporters of high animal welfare standards. Throughout our history, we have championed the rights and wellbeing of animals, and this debate is a contribution to that commitment. As he pointed out, let us not forget that, during the coalition Government we introduced a ban on animal testing of household products—a significant step that reflected the public’s desire for greater compassion in our laws. In passing, I must say that we were strongly opposed to the unnecessary deaths of animals caused by what they call “duplicated testing” following this country’s departure from the European Union. That was a tragic consequence that could and should have been avoided. Most recently, at my party’s conference this year, we reaffirmed our commitment by passing a substantial new policy motion calling on the Government to introduce a comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill as part of a proper national strategy to secure Britain’s place as a world leader in animal welfare.
This is not just about policy, though. It is essential that we recognise in British law that animals are sentient beings. That is not just a symbolic gesture; it places a binding duty on Governments now and in the future to uphold our country’s high welfare standards. Let us be clear: testing on dogs must be minimised wherever possible, rigorously justified, tightly regulated and, above all, actively reduced day by day, week by week and month by month. That is why my party is calling for significant and sustained funding for research into alternative methods that are both more humane and scientifically advanced. We have heard some interesting ideas on how that can be taken forward, and I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions.
I want to close by referring to an old friend of mine. I was a scrawny wee boy. I was an only kid until I was 10, living on a small dairy farm in the north of Scotland, and my best friend was Gus, an African lion hound. That sounds like a very grand name, and Gus was an enormous dog. I was just a lonely wee boy on a farm and Gus was my best chum. We did everything together, Gus and me. I called him Gug because I could not pronounce Gus—mostly because, my mum said, I had a cold most of the time, as it was a very cold place. Believe it or not, Gus—this vast dog—used to let me share his dog biscuits. I can remember quite enjoying dog biscuits—I had better not go further lest my late mother be accused of bad parenting or rural deprivation. I was delighted to join this debate to remember an old friend who was part of my earliest years and is still remembered by me as a sweet and lovely dog.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the almost 235,000 signatories to this petition, including 670 from my constituency of Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The number of signatories to the petition and the speed at which they were collected demonstrate the strength of feeling on the issue. It is just over a year since the previous debates on this topic. At the start of my speech, I must declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—and, since we are all pitching for our various hounds, as the owner of the best-looking dog. She is the winner of several “best rescue” rosettes—I think that puts that discussion to bed.
The use of dogs and other animals in scientific and regulatory procedures has long been a controversial and emotive topic. It is a topic in which I have a closer interest than I may like, and more of an interest than most Members of this House need to. My constituency of Huntingdon has long been ground zero for much of the conversation around this practice. It has two sites involved in pharmaceutical research and animal testing: Labcorp’s pharmaceutical testing facility and Marshal BioResources’s beagle breeding facility, which is known as MBR Acres. As such, I speak on this subject with some first-hand experience of its sensitivity.
Only this weekend, there was a large demonstration of several hundred people outside the MBR Acres beagle breeding facility. I visited LabCorp last summer, so I have seen at first hand the lab conditions, the dogs in their pens and how they are looked after. It is very sanitised, as one might expect. I did not witness any of the experiments taking place, but it is a difficult thing to see the dogs held in those areas, knowing what awaits them in the testing process.
While this debate is about dogs, they sit within a hierarchy. Pigs are at the bottom, then come dogs, and above them sit primates. It is notable that no one has spoken about the use of primates in testing, but it is worth mentioning because, having visited that facility, I have seen the macaques that are used for testing above dogs in rarer circumstances, and the way that they come over, climb on the fences and look one in the eyes. The similarity between humans and primates makes it even more difficult to look at them than at the dogs.
I would like to make clear that I do not support animal testing for human medication—hence my APPG membership—but recognise that it is, at present, still a crucial milestone that regrettably will have a place in the pre-clinical testing process until there has been sufficient advancement in non-animal methods that such practices are no longer required across the board. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of all Members when I say that we would like to see a world in which animal testing for human medication is no longer needed. That is also the view of many that we have spoken to who are involved in the testing.
Animal research in the UK is regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Animals can therefore be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. The Opposition fully support the Act and its full enforcement.
The previous Government invested heavily funding for the three Rs: replacement of the use of animals in research where that is not necessary, reduction in the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved. Via the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, or NC3Rs, the previous Government invested £90 million in research and a further £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council supports research that aims to develop and apply innovative methods for studying human and animal physiology, including in-silica approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems.
Last year, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced a doubling of annual funding to £20 million. He also announced that the then Government had a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. I wrote to the Secretary of State last year and asked him whether he would publish this plan. I am keen to hear from the Minister what happened to the plan and when the Government’s version can be expected.
As we are all well aware, in its election manifesto last year, the Labour party pledged to phase out animal testing. The Government’s starting position is that it is
“not yet possible to replace all animal use due to the complexity of biological systems and regulatory requirements for their use.”
We share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, but it is simply not realistic to do so with the immediacy that is often clamoured for by those protesting against the process. The medical industry desperately needs further investment to realise new alternatives. Currently, it does not have the resources to stop animal testing with immediate effect in a way that would ensure the sufficient safety of certain medicines, or that would be compliant with many foreign market standards and regulatory frameworks. Global medicines regulators such as the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration require stringent research standards regarding the safety of a potential new medicine to be met before it is used in human clinical trials.
In February, I asked the Government what discussions they had had with the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic regarding the regulatory approval of non-animal methods. They responded:
“The Government is working to understand the international drivers and challenges to integrating non-animal methods into regulatory safety testing. This includes engaging with government scientists and regulators, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Food Standards Agency and Environment Agency, as well as international medicines and chemicals regulators”.
Separately, the Minister has informed me that these methods will need to be incorporated into the international regulatory guidelines that the MHRA adheres to. That is it. That is the Government’s entire approach to crossing the enormous hurdle of international recognition. Regardless of how much money we pour into research, without international recognition of specific non-animal methods for each pharmaceutical product tested via those means, international licensing of those products is simply not feasible, so any talk from the Government about phasing out animal testing is just lip service.
In September, I asked the Government what steps they were taking to change the policy of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to allow results from non-animal methods of pharmaceutical testing to be used to support drug safety through pre-clinical trials. They responded:
“We are engaging with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who represent the UK at the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on how to accelerate the acceptance of data generated in non-animal methods for drug safety decision making.”
I am aware that MHRA representatives attended a ministerial roundtable on accelerating the adoption of alternatives to using animals for drug development last year. Given that that was more than six months ago, I am keen to hear from the Minister what progress has been made.
We need action from the Government in a number of areas if they are to meet their ambition of animal-free testing. We would welcome clarification from the Minister about what has been done and what will be done through conversations with other regulatory bodies and Governments about phasing out animal testing as a priority, when alternatives are available, in a way that does not hinder trade possibilities. As the Government work on trade deals, it is crucial, where medicines are concerned, that this area is looked at closely. The UK can lead the way.
Working with partners on this issue is key for our scientific and medical industry, because even where there may be alternatives to testing on animals, some products would not fit the criteria to sell elsewhere under the current rules. In February, I asked the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms if the Government would publish a timeline for the phasing out of tests via the work of the NC3Rs. He responded:
“We are working at pace trying to put together a practicable policy and a strategy which, as I said, we will publish by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 244.]
I am aware that the Government have already made clear that they will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods later this year. I do not anticipate that the situation has changed significantly in the 10 weeks since that exchange, but now that we are a third of the way through the year, I would like to hear from the Minister whether any progress has been made. Is a strategy now in place? Furthermore, will the Minister expand on what exact engagement the Department and the Government at large are having with the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities on how to take their commitment forward?
The issue of licences for animal testing should also be addressed, although I appreciate that it is not within this Department’s brief. Marshall BioResources in my constituency last received an unannounced inspection from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in April 2024. Since receiving its establishment licence in October 2017, it has received eight announced and seven unannounced inspections. The outcome of the most recent inspection was that no critical, major or minor findings and no low-level concerns were identified. With that in mind, the Minister has previously informed me that the Government are preparing to conduct an internal review into the duration of project licences for animal research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The original schedule was for the review’s report to be published by the end of 2025. Could the Minister tell me whether the review has started and whether the report will still be published by year end?
To conclude, we want to see clear, pragmatic plans that support the Government’s manifesto pledges, and that must include viable alternative testing methods that are safe and that can sell on the international stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate. I also thank the thousands of petitioners—some of whom are in the Public Gallery, which indicates the strength of public views on this matter—and all hon. Members here today, who have made powerful contributions.
I do not have a dog, so I will not enter the competition about whose dog is the cutest, but I do have two little children who try to touch every single dog we come across when we go around parks; they at least now know that they have to ask permission before they do that. I feel that I am not too far from having one of those cute dogs, or one like Frank, in our household.
The Government fully appreciate that the use of dogs for scientific and regulatory procedures stirs strong emotional feelings for many people across the UK, including myself as a dog lover. In my previous role in local government, I was responsible for environment, including stray dogs, as part of a service for many authorities around us. In a bid to avoid having to put healthy dogs down, we set up London’s first dog hotel, which Peter Egan opened. We had a system where staff could come and take dogs out for walks. Every role I have had has involved looking after dogs, and I must say that I found the preparation for this debate very difficult.
Along with other Members present, I long for the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research; it cannot come soon enough, but sadly it is not yet here. The UK is world leading in the development of non-animal methods, and the Government are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible. That is why our manifesto commits us to partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards phasing out animal testing. Colleagues mentioned the changes that the FDA has brought forward. To be clear, those bring it in line with us regarding the protection of animals, but where there is new learning to be done, we will absolutely look at that.
As part of our commitment to phasing out the use of animals in science, we will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods. It will set out how we can build on our support by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animal testing with alternative methods wherever possible. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment.
I will now expand on why, given the current state of science, we are unfortunately not yet ready to ban the use of dogs for testing and research purposes in the UK. The use of animals in science lies in the intersection of two vital public goods: the benefits to humans, animals and the environment, and the UK’s proud history of support for the highest possible standards of animal welfare.
The balance between these two public goods is reflected in the UK’s robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, known as ASPA. The Act specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum. As has been mentioned, this is known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.
The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated, including through a three-tier system of licensing, which licenses each establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures involving animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use.
Our manifesto commitment stands in recognition of the fact that the phasing out of animal testing has to be in lockstep with the development of alternatives. As yet, the reality is that the technology is not advanced enough for alternative methods to completely replace the use of animals. For now, animal testing and research play an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals, and it supports the safety and sustainability of our environment.
Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. The development of the covid-19 vaccine, as with all vaccines, was made possible only because of the use of animals in research. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. Many products that would be unsafe or ineffective, or that could cause harm to humans, are detected through animal testing, ensuring the safety of the healthy volunteers who take part in clinical trials, as well as of future patients.
Seamus Logan
We have heard from a number of Members today—some of them very learned Members of Parliament who have professional backgrounds in this area—about the serious doubts regarding the efficacy of some of the tests the Minister is referring to. Would she be willing after the debate to share with me the sources she is using to support her claims regarding the value of this testing?
Feryal Clark
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am happy to share the research and reasons behind my arguments.
For the reasons I have given, animal testing is required by the international agreements followed by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used.
The key proposal in the petition is for an immediate ban on the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures. None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated. However, I regret to say that forbidding the use of dogs in medical research—without alternatives at the moment—would likely have catastrophic effects on the UK’s medical research system. We would be unable to meet international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, preventing virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK and vastly reducing the number of subsequent clinical trials. A significant proportion of basic research would cease, preventing new insight into disease and treatments that save lives and improve people’s health. Forbidding the use of animals in medical research would also likely have a negative impact on animal welfare. Animal testing would move overseas, to countries where the regulations on the use of animals in science are less stringent than they are here.
I am proud to say that the UK is world leading in the development of alternative methods, and we are keen to utilise that technology as much as possible. As much as we can, we are striving to partner with regulators to see how advances in technology can phase out animal use where we are able to do that.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is making an interesting speech, because the Labour party manifesto commitment is very clear: we are looking to ban animal testing. We have talked about a road map, which Labour has committed to, so when will that be published and when will the strategy be published? I ask because those are vital things that people in the Public Gallery want to know today.
Feryal Clark
My hon. Friend intervenes at the right time, as I was about to say that in publishing our road map, we will be setting out how we can go even further in supporting alternative methods and working towards a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternatives wherever possible.
Currently, through UKRI, the Government support the development and dissemination of the three Rs. That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies and to ensure that advances are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.
Steve Race
I failed to catch the Minister’s eye on her previous mention of the three Rs. Does she agree that the number of procedures using specially protected species—cats, dogs, horses and non-human primates—has actually increased over recent years, to about 17,000 from about 15,000 in 2022 and that that was driven by a 38.9% rise in procedures using horses? Does she also agree that our hon. Friend the Minister for Security confirmed that in the period from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2024, no applications for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were refused? Does she see reductions in the number of animals being used in testing or are they actually increasing as part of the strategy?
Feryal Clark
The stats that I have say that in 2023 the use of dogs in procedures reduced by 9%. On overall animal testing, I will have to get back to my hon. Friend. I am sure that my colleagues from the Home Office will be able to explain the stringent licensing process—the procedure that everyone has to go through to be able to obtain a licence.
We want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with alternatives where we can. That is why our current approach is to support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research, and to ensure that the UK has a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards, which will drive their uptake. We have a commitment in our manifesto to do all we can to phase out the use of animals—including dogs—in science, and we will be publishing a road map before the end of the year to lay out how we can give increased impetus to the support and validation of alternative methods.
Colleagues asked about ensuring that we are consulting animal welfare organisations, and there is a roundtable meeting with the Office for Life Sciences and animal welfare organisations to do precisely that. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) requested a meeting to discuss issues around the benefits of testing on animals. I am happy to agree to that and will be in contact with his office to arrange one.
I conclude by again thanking Members for their insightful contributions to today’s debate, and I look forward to working together as we go forward.
Irene Campbell
I first thank Maria Iriart for creating the petition and for her work in growing it to more than 230,000 signatures. I thank its supporters who have attended the debate—it is much appreciated. I also thank Animal Free Research UK, Cruelty Free International, Dr Jarrod Bailey and Understanding Animal Research for their helpful briefings. As ever, I give huge thanks to the staff of the Petitions Committee for their invaluable hard work and organisation in preparing meetings and briefings, and for their support in preparing for this debate.
As we have heard, Britain is without doubt a nation of animal lovers. As a Scottish MP, I have some Scottish data to hand: 79% of Scottish adults believe that it is unacceptable for experiments on animals to continue when other testing methods are available, and 62% are in favour of the Government setting deadlines for the phasing out of animal testing. In my constituency, 248 people signed the petition. I, too, think that the timeline is crucial: when we get the road map, we need a realistic timeline with it; if we have no timeline, it would be hugely problematic.
I have to be honest: the debate has brought attention to an issue that many people do not want to face or discuss. The many contributions today have highlighted the depth of feeling on this matter. We have the scientific evidence, with many scientists advising and supporting the view that it is time to remove dogs from medical testing. It is important to remember that, although we have mentioned animal testing in the wider sense, this debate is about removing dogs immediately from medical testing. We should not lose sight of that—Jennie the dog is here today, so we even have a dog in the Chamber.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, including the Minister, although I have to say that her response was disappointing. I look forward to the day when we achieve this aim, but I really do think that we must have a timeline; otherwise, the road map will not be robust.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 705384 relating to the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures.
Tax Simplification, Administration and Reform
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the autumn Budget 2024 and the spring statement 2025, the Government committed to bringing forward a package of measures in spring 2025 aimed at simplifying the tax and customs system to help deliver the plan for change. Today, the Government deliver that commitment with a package of 26 measures.
In addition, the Government are setting out two further administrative measures designed to strengthen the integrity of the tax and customs system, as well as a package of 11 measures that reform the tax system, ensuring that it continues to be fit for the modern world.
This includes new plans to reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to deliver the Government’s ambition to become a more productive, agile and effective state.
Simplification
Measures announced today will support economic growth by reducing burdens on employers and small businesses, modernising HMRC systems and processes to simplify the experience for individuals and traders, and simplifying HMRC guidance and communications.
The Government have engaged widely with stakeholders, including representative bodies, business organisations, the border industry and small businesses, and are implementing five ideas submitted by the Administrative Burdens Advisory Board as their priorities for simplification.
The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further measures and priorities for simplifying the tax and customs administration system.
These measures will collectively reduce administrative burdens so that businesses and individual taxpayers spend less time on tax and customs administration and more time adding value to the economy.
Measures being announced today that reduce burdens on businesses, employers, and employees include:
Capital goods scheme simplification: To support small businesses, secondary legislation will be laid at a later date to remove computers from the assets covered by the scheme, and increase the capital expenditure value of land, buildings and civil engineering work, currently set at £250,000—exclusive of VAT—to £600,000.
Spirit drinks verification scheme simplification: At the autumn Budget, the Government announced their commitment to support the UK spirits industry by, among other measures, investing up to £5 million into HMRC’s spirit drinks verification scheme. The Government have decided to use this funding to modernise HMRC’s IT system and introduce a simpler flat fee model, significantly reducing the fees paid by operators to £250 per facility.
Mandating the payrolling of benefits in kind: As recommended by the Administrative Burdens Advisory Board, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, and the Employment and Payroll Group, the Government have announced a delay to the introduction of mandatory reporting and paying of income tax and class 1A national insurance contributions (NICs) on benefits in kind via payroll software—“Mandatory Payrolling.”
Mandatory Payrolling will be introduced from April 2027 instead of April 2026, to reduce the burden on businesses by giving them more time to prepare for changes. HMRC will continue to engage on design and delivery issues to ensure minimum disruption to employers.
These steps to reduce burdens on employers build on the 28 January 2025 announcement that the Government will not be taking forward the draft Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, initiated by the previous Government. This means employers will no longer have to provide more detailed employee hours data to HMRC from April 2026.
Additionally, today the Government have set out further measures to modernise HMRC systems and processes to simplify the customer experience, including:
Cultural gift scheme: The Government are announcing their intention to introduce legislation at the next Finance Bill to reform the scheme by removing the restriction on jointly owned objects and allowing tax credits to be used more flexibly. This will simplify the scheme by making it more accessible and improve take-up and will come into effect from April 2026.
Income Tax Self-Assessment (ITSA) criteria review: the Government confirmed their intention to raise the ITSA reporting threshold for trading income and align it with new ITSA reporting thresholds for property and “other taxable” income, at £3,000 gross each. This will remove the requirement for up to 300,000 taxpayers to file a self-assessment return. These changes will be implemented within this Parliament.
Reviewing National Insurance Contributions (NICs) Annual Maximum refunds process: A review of the process for refunding national insurance contributions under the annual maximum rules, to make it easier and faster for customers to access the refunds they are entitled to.
Voluntary NICs: enhancing “Check Your State Pension” forecast service: The Government also intend to further enhance the “Check Your State Pension” forecast service, which supports people who want to pay voluntary national insurance contributions to fill gaps in their national insurance record.
These measures build on the Government’s announcement at the spring statement 2025 that, from summer 2025, employed individuals who become liable to the high-income child benefit charge will be able to opt to pay HICBC directly through PAYE, without the need to register for self-assessment.
Simplifying HMRC guidance and communications is crucial to helping taxpayers get their tax right first time and reducing the worry and stress of managing their tax affairs. Therefore, the Government are announcing five measures to improve HMRC guidance and communications, including:
Clarifying self-assessment registration obligations: As recommended by tax professionals, HMRC will simplify guidance on self-assessment registration obligations to ensure clarity on when individuals must register for self-assessment.
Simpler communication and AI solutions: HMRC is working with external stakeholders to simplify HMRC guidance and communications by:
Working with the Administrative Burdens Advisory Board and others to simplify the language used in HMRC letters, making them more accessible and easier to read.
Collaborating with third parties and the Government Digital Service to investigate how businesses could leverage HMRC’s gov.uk guidance in their own AI-powered products and services. This could make it easier for taxpayers to get the information they need with the help of the latest AI solutions, reducing the need to contact HMRC, and access a more personalised experience to meet their needs.
The Government are also announcing a package of measures that simplify customs processes, reduce burdens and improve customer experience, while ensuring that we place targeted and appropriate control on movements. This includes:
Improvements to temporary admission: A package of simplifications and improvements to temporary admission, which relieves import duties on temporary imports.
Customs digitalisation: Announcing the details of Government pilots progressing trade and customs digitalisation, including a technical pilot with US Customs and Border Protection to test methods to speed up processes for trade for UK and US businesses.
Transit improvements: An informal stakeholder engagement exercise on potential improvements to modernise the transit process.
Authorisation by Declaration: Increasing how often AbD—authorisation by declaration—can be used from three times to 10 times per 12 months. AbD allows importers to use certain special procedures to suspend or relieve duties without getting an authorisation from HMRC beforehand.
Post and parcel exports consultation: A summary of responses to the customs treatment of post and parcel exports consultation. This includes a new authorisation scheme for ETOE—extraterritorial office of exchange—operators and sites to ensure that they operate with appropriate security standards. It also announces plans to conduct a further review of the export and transhipment memoranda of understanding, with the aim of clarifying existing rules and ensuring consistency and alignment with other comparable facilitations.
These measures are part of our ambition to embed innovation in customs processes and systems to support digitalised trade and supply chains. The Government are committed to continuing to work closely with industry to deliver on our ambitions and further improve our customs system.
Tax Administration
The Government are introducing administrative measures as part of this package of tax and customs policies.
This includes legislative amendments to ensure that all border locations are responsible for funding and operating their own customs infrastructure.
Reform
The Government have announced a package of measures that help to reform the tax system, ensuring that it continues to be fit for the modern world.
New proposals are being published for consultation, including on a single remote gambling duty, as committed to at the autumn Budget 2024, and on the VAT treatment of business donations of goods to charity. The Government are also consulting on proposals to reform the soft drinks industry levy in order to strengthen incentives to reduce sugar in soft drinks, proposals to reform landfill tax, and are exploring the merits of reform to online marketplace liability for VAT.
In addition, the Government will outline next steps on reform work already under way, including on the modernisation of the stamp taxes on shares framework and the response to the technical consultation on vaping duty.
The Government are committed to modernising HMRC to become a digital-first organisation. The Government are announcing today that HMRC will reduce paper post sent, saving £50 million per year by 2028-29, while maintaining paper post provision for critical correspondence and for the digitally excluded. The Government will do this by investing in digital services to send and receive taxpayer information and will bring forward legislation to support a digital-first approach.
The Government are committed to improving value for money in the system of tax administration, and so will be reducing the HMRC estate in central London by 25%. HMRC is already a national organisation and by 2030, 85% of HMRC staff will be based outside of London. Moving roles out of London, in line with the Government’s wider “Places for Growth” initiative will ensure that the civil service is closer to the communities it serves.
Ahead of their review of all arm’s length bodies, the Government are confirming that they will bring the functions of the Valuation Office Agency, an executive agency of HMRC, within HMRC by the end of this financial year. Moving the VOA’s functions into HMRC will strengthen direct accountability to Ministers, helping to improve the experience of taxpayers and businesses and support the delivery of the Government’s commitments to reform business rates and modernise the tax system. This move will support the Government to deliver change more quickly and effectively, by combining the expertise and experience of both organisations in policy, valuations and programme delivery. It will also drive efficiencies in the administration of the tax system, resulting in between 5% and 10% in additional savings in VOA administrative costs by 2028-29.
The full list of publications and announcements can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-update-spring-2025-simplification-administration-and-reform
[HCWS607]
King’s Gurkha Artillery
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am pleased to announce the creation of the King’s Gurkha Artillery, within the Royal Regiment of Artillery. The King’s Gurkha Artillery will be based in Larkhill garrison, the Royal Artillery’s regimental headquarters.
Creating this new employment opportunity in the Royal Artillery gives existing and new Gurkhas more choice on where they serve and greater opportunities for career development. The formation of the 400-strong King’s Gurkha Artillery will be completed over the next four years, with the first transfers of existing Gurkhas taking place this spring.
The Royal Artillery are a major part of the Army’s offer to NATO, and the King’s Gurkha Artillery will play a part in supporting key modernisation programmes as part of this offer.
[HCWS605]
Energy Security Summit
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
On 24 and 25 April 2025, at Lancaster House, the UK Government partnered with the International Energy Agency to convene the first global summit on the future of energy security.
The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission addressed the summit, delivering the message that energy security is national security and depends on co-operation with others, acting together to seize the opportunity of the clean energy transition. The summit was represented by almost 60 countries, more than 50 global businesses as well as non-governmental organisations and civil society groups from around the world.
Our starting point for this summit is that in an unstable and uncertain world, there can be no national or international security without energy security. In the years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have been reminded in the UK, and indeed across Europe and the world, of a simple truth: that as long as energy can be weaponised against us, our countries and our citizens are vulnerable and exposed.
This summit marked an important moment for countries to come together and discuss what the shifting global landscape means for how we deliver energy security in this era. Many participants emphasised the importance of the energy transition and how this can enable a more secure and affordable system, noting our vulnerability to price shocks from fossil fuel markets.
Political and industry leaders from around the world discussed the diverse energy security challenges faced by different countries, and how energy in all its forms is the basis of human and economic development. Achieving secure, affordable, and sustainable energy for all remains a fundamental priority in the years to come. Many stressed that multilateral co-operation between countries, as well as with international organisations, industry and civil society, is key to tackling shared challenges and ensuring a secure energy system.
The Prime Minister announced an initial £300 million investment, ahead of the spending review, through Great British Energy, in order to win global offshore wind investment in the UK and create thousands of jobs, and a major carbon capture and storage network is ready for construction—boosting energy security and the Government’s plan for change.
At the summit, the Government also established a new mission focused on strengthening global supply chains through the UK-led global clean power alliance. The GCPA will bring together the global north and south, and will draw on and share the UK’s world-leading experience of pursuing clean power by 2030 to speed up the global clean energy transition.
Our decision to co-host this summit reflects the UK’s determination to go the extra mile as a convenor on the world stage—because it is in our national interest. Clean energy is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, and the leadership we are showing is about seizing the jobs and growth for Britain, and making the UK a clean energy superpower.
[HCWS606]
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Revenue Certainty Mechanism
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Sustainable aviation fuel is integral to reaching net zero aviation by 2050. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by around 70% on average over the lifecycle of its production and use when replacing fossil kerosene. It is also an enabler of growth, and can provide good, skilled jobs across the UK.
That is why this Government has taken rapid action to support SAF. Just weeks into office, we reiterated our commitment to the SAF mandate. In November, we signed it into law, and it has been in place since January.
The SAF mandate is the UK’s key policy mechanism to secure demand for SAF. It delivers GHG emission savings by encouraging the use of SAF within the aviation industry. It does this by setting a legal obligation on fuel suppliers in the UK to supply an increasing proportion of SAF over time. Suppliers receive certificates for the SAF they supply. Certificates are issued in proportion to the level of GHG emission reductions that the fuel delivers—that is, the greater the savings, the greater the number of certificates they receive. The SAF mandate started at 2% of total UK jet fuel demand in 2025 and increases linearly to 10% in 2030 and then to 22% in 2040. It could deliver up to 6.3 million tonnes of carbon savings per year by 2040.
We are also committed to developing the UK SAF industry to secure a UK supply of SAF, attract investment and create good green jobs across the UK.
In January, we announced an additional £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund, our grant funding programme for UK SAF production, extending the programme for another year.
We are also introducing a revenue certainty mechanism to help attract investment into UK SAF production. Under the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, SAF producers will enter into a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty. These contracts will set a strike price for SAF. If producers sell their SAF for below the strike price, the counterparty makes payments of the difference; if the SAF is sold for above the strike price, the producer makes payments of the difference to the counterparty. This addresses the most significant constraint on investment in SAF production and sends a clear signal to investors: that this is a serious UK investment opportunity.
This Government have made significant progress towards delivering the revenue certainty mechanism. We announced in the King’s speech that we will be introducing a revenue certainty mechanism Bill in the first Session of this Parliament and will have the legislation in place by the end of 2026 at the very latest.
In 2050, up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion gross value added in the UK could be supported with future low-carbon fuel production for the domestic and international markets. The revenue certainty mechanism, along with the Government’s modern industrial strategy, will provide a launchpad for this sector to drive growth and investment.
[HCWS608]
Governance of the Union (Constitution Committee Report)
Baroness Drake
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee The Governance of the Union: Consultation, Co-operation and Legislative Consent (1st Report, HL Paper 13).
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Constitution Committee has published a number of insightful reports on the governance of the union. Among the most significant was the 2022 publication Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. This report meticulously highlighted the worrying deterioration in relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. It traced the erosion of trust and the growing sense of division that was largely attributed to a perceived lack of co-operation and respect in intergovernmental relations. Moreover, it pointed to insufficient commitment to the process of consultation and engagement between the Governments of the United Kingdom.
Continuing concerns about the state of relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations prompted the committee to conduct a follow-up inquiry, which brings us to the subject of today’s report, The Governance of the Union. This new report acknowledges that the union faced serious strains. It is undeniable that events such as Brexit, the challenges of Covid, the growing aspirations for independence in Scotland and the suspension of institutions in Northern Ireland presented major challenges, but these challenges, while very significant, do not entirely account for the difficulties in governance. These strains have in fact exposed deeper systemic deficiencies in the structures and processes of intergovernmental relations.
In an earlier report, the committee perceptively recommended the greater use of formal intergovernmental mechanisms, which are likely to become increasingly important when Governments of different political persuasions have to deal with each other and tensions inevitably arise. In 2018, Ministers agreed to review the existing intergovernmental structures and, in January 2022, the UK and devolved Governments jointly agreed to implement a new intergovernmental relations structure. The committee sought to determine whether the distinct pressures of recent years—Brexit, the pandemic, political tensions—remained present and whether the new structures are robust enough to weather future stresses. In doing so, it focused on: whether the intergovernmental relations structures introduced in 2022 are functioning effectively and whether they could be improved; observance of the Sewel convention; and the increasing use of primary legislation by the Government to empower UK Ministers to make secondary legislation and use Henry VIII powers in areas of devolved competence. Whatever the merits of a particular participant’s views, the evidence revealed a pervasive sense of lack of trust, respect and confidence in the system of intergovernmental relations.
The new intergovernmental structures introduced in 2022 represent a welcome initiative. They have the potential to address long-standing criticisms of the intergovernmental framework. Specifically, they aim to create a more regular, transparent and formal system of intergovernmental working and greater transparency, accountability and scrutiny from each Government’s respective legislatures. To realise these benefits, however, it is essential that the Government fully integrate these mechanisms into the day-to-day workings of government. The commitment to enhanced reporting made by all four Governments is a step in the right direction, but to fulfil this commitment all four must ensure that the reporting is timely, detailed and conducive to meaningful scrutiny by their respective legislators.
In this regard, the Government have made some positive moves. They have committed to renew opportunities for the Prime Minister and the heads of devolved Governments to collaborate with each other. They have acknowledged the importance of transparency and have asked the committee what additional information would be useful to see in their annual transparency report. They have committed to keeping the committee’s suggestions under review, including those for greater qualitative analysis for the state of intergovernmental relations, data on the legislative consent process, headline data on the number of meetings held at prime ministerial, Secretary of State or ministerial level, and links to the communiqués published after intergovernmental meetings. The effectiveness of these new structures will depend heavily on how they are operated in practice. Positive engagement and the sharing of information will be essential for success. Both the Government and the devolved Administrations must demonstrate a commitment to collaboration and transparency.
One important recommendation from the committee is the inclusion of a principle of positive engagement to be added to the existing principles in the 2022 review of intergovernmental relations. The Government have expressed agreement on the importance of attitudes and behaviours, pointing to their collaboration with the Scottish Government on the establishment of GB Energy as an example of positive engagement. However, it was disappointing that they did not accept the introduction of such a principle of positive engagement. Their argument was that updating intergovernmental relations principles is a shared responsibility across all four Governments. While I appreciate the point, it is crucial that the Government lead by example, particularly given their dominant position in the union. Can the Minister provide an update to the House on the qualitative progress of transparency and positive engagement in intergovernmental relations? How are these principles being embedded in practice?
Another key area explored by the committee is common frameworks. The report urges the Government to mobilise every effort to implement all 32 common frameworks agreed between the Government and the devolved Administrations. With the restoration of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, these frameworks provide an important example of intergovernmental co-operation on important policy areas across the constituent nations of the union. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of my noble friend Lady Andrews, as chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, and her colleagues for their tireless work in supporting those frameworks. Can the Minister update us on progress towards implementing the common frameworks programme?
The committee’s report highlights the importance of the wider machinery of government in facilitating effective intergovernmental relations. The appointment of a Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, based in the Cabinet Office, is a welcome step. The Minister, along with the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, must work closely together to ensure a shared understanding of the devolved settlement and to protect the integrity of intergovernmental relations in whatever new arrangements may be introduced.
Turning to the Sewel convention, the committee considered the extent to which it had been observed prior to and since Brexit. The convention that the UK Parliament should “not normally” legislate on devolved matters without consent was well observed from 1999 until it came under strain following Brexit. The departure from the EU and the return of powers to Westminster and the devolved Administrations led to a significant increase in policy areas where the boundary between reserved and devolved matters was less than clear and the need for legislative consent became contested. On occasions, the devolved Governments took a more expansive view than the UK Government on whether consent was required, leading to differences of opinion and a deterioration in relations.
Since Brexit, the UK Government legislated without the consent of one or more devolved legislatures on multiple occasions and, at times, in relation to Bills unrelated to Brexit. This may be the result, in part, of the devolved Governments taking a more expansive view, but the trend is a matter of concern and highlights the need for closer and timely engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, even where devolved Governments are opposed to the union.
Confidence in the observance of the Sewel convention has declined and the committee rightly calls for improvements in its observance. The committee rejected the idea of replacing the Sewel convention with an express legal duty, as this would introduce rigidity and potentially involve the courts in what is fundamentally a political matter.
The Government are the more powerful, however. They must demonstrate greater awareness of the potential impacts of their policies on the devolved nations and engage in constructive dialogue to resolve differences. But there is also a need for a reciprocal convention requiring devolved Administrations to notify the UK Government of devolved legislation that could impact on reserved matters. A new principle of notification and engagement could be a feature in the Government’s proposed new memorandum of understanding, outlining how the nations will work together for the common good.
The report also recommends a greater role for Parliament and the Lords in scrutinising legislation that engages the Sewel convention. It suggests that the Government should go beyond the current Explanatory Notes and submit a memorandum to the House explaining the devolution implications of Bills and engagement. If the Government consider that consent is not required, they should justify that decision at the outset of the Bill’s consideration.
The Government agreed that greater transparency around engagement on Bills and their devolution implications would be helpful and are committed to delivering a new memorandum of understanding on legislation, which they hope to publish later this year. Can the Minister update the House on the progress on this new memorandum of understanding and on the proposals for greater transparency in the engagement process?
Another critical area addressed by the committee is the disturbing rise in the Government’s use of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers to empower Ministers to make secondary legislation in areas of devolved competence or to amend Acts of the devolved legislatures. While the Sewel convention does not apply to secondary legislation, the committee recommends that the use of such powers in devolved competence areas should be accompanied by a requirement to consult. Furthermore, the Government should publish clear criteria on when such powers should not normally be exercised without consent of the relevant devolved legislatures.
Where UK legislation empowers UK Ministers to alter Acts of the devolved legislatures, they should not normally be exercised without the explicit consent of the relevant legislatures. The committee observed that it would be “constitutionally questionable” for Parliament to circumvent Sewel by introducing Henry VIII powers in a way that foresees or intends changing devolved legislation in areas of devolved competence. The Government committed to considering these proposals in their work with devolved Governments on legislation. Could the Minister update the House on the Government’s considerations, including setting out the circumstances in which the UK Government ought “not normally” to exercise a delegated power without consent?
Finally, I express gratitude to all those who gave written or oral evidence to the inquiry, which was of great value. I thank my excellent committee members for their depth of engagement with the governance of the union. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was a much-valued member of the committee when the report was prepared. I also thank the committee clerk Kate Wallis and policy adviser Alice Edmonston for so ably supporting the committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My name is on the list, but I have withdrawn from the debate because I am moving an amendment in the Chamber—but I am very interested in the issue. That is why I am here.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it seems to be my turn. I was a member of the Constitution Committee under our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I thank her for the way in which she chaired this report, which I fully supported.
I was particularly concerned at the increasing disregard of the Sewel convention, beginning with Boris Johnson’s Government. Among the many strains caused by Brexit, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, just referred, tensions with the devolved Administrations and Parliaments featured highly. Legislative consent was frequently sought at short notice and refusals by the devolved Parliaments to pass legislative consent Motions were ignored.
I have a quasi-proprietorial attachment to the Sewel convention, because I was present when it was announced by Lord Sewel on a late warm July evening in 1998. My great friend, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, then Conservative spokesman on Scottish and constitutional affairs, introduced into the Scotland Bill what he described as “a small drafting amendment”, stating to the effect that, in any legislative conflict between the Westminster and the Scottish Parliaments, Westminster would prevail. He said that he was not looking to vote on it. My colleague and close friend Lord Mackie of Benshie intervened to say that the amendment went to the whole root of devolution. Lord Sewel then said, seemingly off the cuff:
“However, as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament”.
He continued:
“I cannot believe that it is beyond our wit to develop such a convention. That is much more suitable than through the business of legislative ping-pong or tennis … There should be mature political dialogue to resolve a difference, which is better than legislative tennis”.—[Official Report, 21/7/1998; col. 791.]
The convention was later given legislative recognition in Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016 and of the Wales Act 2017.
On 26 March, in his letter to Lord Strathclyde, the current chairman of the committee, Pat McFadden said that, as set out in the 2024 manifesto, the Government will
“strengthen the Sewel Convention through setting out a new MoU with the devolved governments”.
Work, he said, was under way after initial discussions last year and he is hoping for a new memorandum of understanding to be agreed by the end of the year. I have studied the Labour manifesto. Nothing is said about the Sewel convention in any of its sections relating to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, although it promises
“to end the chaos of sleaze and division, turn the page, and reset politics”.
In the Government’s response to our report, in which we had called for the Sewel convention to be respected, the Government said that they would
“establish a mutual baseline for engagement, and the importance of good policy outcomes, as the main objective of legislation UK-wide”.
I feel as an Athenian supplicant must have felt after sacrificing the odd goat or two at Delphi. What on earth is a “mutual baseline for engagement”? I think the time has come for some clarity.
In strengthening and revising the convention and the MoU, what opportunity will there be for representations from the devolved Administrations and Parliament, from political parties and other stakeholders? What guarantees are intended for the convention to be respected and followed? Do the Government intend to strengthen Westminster as against Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh? Or are the Government looking at a particular area of policy which may cross borders, such as national security? Will they pay attention to the call made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for consideration to be given to a reciprocal convention in relation to the devolved Administrations? What indeed is the “mutual baseline for engagement” and how will it be applied to ensure that the nations of the United Kingdom work harmoniously together, whatever the political nature of their Administrations?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have never been a member of the Constitution Committee; I have asked regularly to become a member and have regularly been rejected. It is my youth and exuberance, I think, that are not there; I am working on both.
I can speak only of Scotland, but I think this is an excellent report. My experience is that what really matters—and the report says this—are not so much institutional frameworks but mutual respect. I was a unionist foot soldier in the 2014 army, and I was shocked that disdainful Achilles sulked in his No. 10 tent and played no part in the campaign. I was also shocked when his victory speech was about not reconciliation and binding up the wounds but English votes for English laws, rubbing salt in the wounds in Scotland.
Subsequently, I used to advise Mrs Sturgeon on EU issues and was astonished at how little she was told about referendum planning and Brexit negotiations. The 27 European Governments knew far more about the negotiations, because of Mr Barnier’s meticulous briefings, than our devolved Governments did. Of course, then came the open contempt and childish insults of the Johnson/Truss period. I am very glad that we seem to have turned that page and that the grown-ups seem to be back. The 2022 arrangements do not seem to have worked perfectly, but they are clearly a lot better than previous ostentatious ostracism.
Bringing intergovernmental relations back to the centre and to the Cabinet Office is a very wise move, but I repeat that what matters are not so much the frameworks as mutual respect. Of course, Scots are absolute experts at having grievances, but there is really no reason to give them a real one. We should seize the moment now, when the wind is not in the SNP’s sails, and reinforce the union by showing that the centre respects, listens to and takes account of the views of the devolved Governments. They are democratically elected, too.
I have two smaller points to make. First, for me, the most striking paragraph in the report is paragraph 303, where the then Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales in the previous Government asserted that
“the Sewel convention should not apply to secondary legislation”.
I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and this was news to me. Surely it is wrong. I hope that the present Government will honour Sewel in respect of primary legislation rather better than their predecessor did, but I also think that using delegated powers to do by ministerial fiat what Parliament said in the Scotland Act it would normally refrain from doing in primary law seems rather outrageous. I am very glad that, in its report, the committee disagreed with Mr Jack and Mr Davies.
I am not quite clear what the present Government think on that issue. The concluding paragraph of their response to the report is a little enigmatic. It states:
“The Government notes the Committee’s recommendations on developing criteria and publishing guidance on the use of delegated powers in devolved areas, and on engagement with the devolved governments on the use of these powers. The Government will consider this as part of its work on engagement with the devolved governments on legislation”.
Quiet, Sir Humphrey—I remember you well.
Finally, this is a small point but an important one. On cross-postings, positive engagement makes sense, but no such injunction will cut much ice in the public service without common understanding. There used to be many more cross-postings than there are now. When I worked in Brussels and Washington, I always had at least two Edinburgh-based civil servants on my staff. Others were seconded to the Treasury and to the Foreign Office, as well as to the Cabinet Office and No. 10. When I was at the top of the Foreign Office, I presided over two-way exchanges with St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh. I worry that devolution is eroding the concept of a united Civil Service. Of course there will always be problems when the political complexion of the devolved Government is different from that of the central government. That will always cause problems for civil servants, but if you cannot ride two horses you should not be in the circus.
It is very good that the silly jibes about Scotland, the Scottish Government and successive First Ministers have stopped and that we seem to be trying constructively to rebuild. Where is the memorandum of understanding promised by the Government? It is taking a while to cook. I look forward to seeing it.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I cannot understand why he has not been appointed to the Constitution Committee. I make my formal declaration: he will be nominated collectively by us as soon as possible. We need his forensic examination.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about my noble friend Lady Drake’s chairmanship. She not only was forensic but made us realise that we have a unique responsibility in the Constitution Committee. Nobody else does that job, and we have to do it with scrupulous attention and vigilance.
That conviction was evident in the report as well, as well as the historical review of how relations between the devolved Administrations and Westminster had deteriorated. Goodness knows there was evidence from our committee and from the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing. It was particularly evident during the passage of the internal market Act and of the European retained law Act, and, of course, in the almost systematic disregard for the Sewel convention.
This report, with its emphasis on the union and how it could and should mean more and work better, is particularly timely given the change of Government. In the Government’s response, we see time and again the emphasis that they have reset relationships across the union and that there is more commitment to intergovernmental structures and more respect. We welcome that, and in particular the approach they are now taking to revising the Sewel convention. I will not repeat the magnificent description of it by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I hope we can have some plain English for
“mutual baseline for engagement, and the importance of good policy outcomes”
as the policy objectives. However, I want to ask the Minister, in addition to translation, whether this is designed to replace or update the convention, or to reinforce the Government’s commitment to it in its present form. I look forward to an answer.
We also welcome the institutional innovations, such as the Council of the Nations and Regions and the specific Minister, but we asked for more transparency. It was all a bit random. We asked for assurances that council meetings would be held consistently and that agendas and attendance would be inclusive as a means of accountability. We had no response on that so, again, perhaps we can be updated on the publication of routine information and the annual report. These are reasonable questions.
In some respects, the responses have been of the “Move on, nothing to see here”, variety. For example, the Government have also rejected the sensible recommendation that the devolution guidance note should be updated to include proposals coming from Wales designed to strength communication across the UK. The Government say it is unnecessary because it is taken care of by the extensive Civil Service devolution capability programme, but we know that training programmes are all about process, not promoting the relationships that mean you know the nuance of devolution and appreciate the cultural diversity that is driving the differences.
Most disappointing, as my noble friend said, is the Government’s refusal to add a principle of positive engagement to those listed in the Review of Intergovernmental Relations. That would send the most powerful signal of all that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, what counts is not institutions but the quality of engagement: the visible trust that exists between people who know each other well and can be honest with each other. The Government say that this principle is embedded across the DAs. So far, so familiar: Governments often say that they do not need to do something because everybody who takes an interest in it knows it is already being dealt with. Well, up to a point, but sometimes you need to make things explicit for them to really make a difference.
Let me end on a more positive note, on the future of common frameworks. I am pleased to see some previous members of the marvellous Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee here. Its demise has left a real gap in access to information about and understanding of the role that common frameworks can and do play in fostering a stronger union. The gap that has been left has been recognised by the Constitution Committee, which is now taking on the task of keeping a watching brief on the operation of the outstanding frameworks, of which there are only three, but also on whether any new developments are coming forward that Parliament needs to know about.
The Government have gone even further and met two of our committee’s most consistent complaints. First, they recognised that common frameworks were originally envisioned as not just managing divergence but agreeing common policy processes—not technical processes. That is their sui generis promise, but it has not yet been realised. The Government have now reverted to their original and positive intention by making it clear that:
“It remains our ambition that Frameworks are used to help develop UK-wide policy where appropriate”.
Hooray for that. Secondly, oversight of the programme is reverting to the Cabinet Office, where it should always have been.
I look forward very much to the Government’s response to this debate on the report, which is important for this House and important for the union.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this report from the Constitution Committee and the fact that it is one of several produced by the committee on the working of our devolved system of government. It has done a commendable job in analysing the process of inter-institutional relations within the UK and setting it within a clear framework of the value of the union.
I chaired the committee when it produced its first report on devolution, Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom, in 2002. Our focus was on ensuring that the relationships worked well and that mechanisms for resolving disputes remained in good working order. At the time, with the same party in control in Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay, a great deal was done through personal contact. We recognised that one had to plan for a time when different parties were in control. Our foresight was not acted on; had it been, the relationships between the different Administrations may have been stronger than they have been. Indeed, I believe that the union would be stronger had successive Governments paid more heed to recommendations from the Constitution Committee.
I have criticised successive Governments for being in reactive mode in dealing with the devolved Administrations. There has been a tendency to concede powers in the belief that this will persuade people in the different parts of the United Kingdom to support remaining in the union. The reactive mode has a pervasive impact, in that, in day-to-day administration, the needs of the different nations tend to be dealt with as an afterthought and relations conducted on a grace-and-favour basis. The Constitution Committee has pressed consistently for a more proactive approach, putting the case for the union and emphasising the benefits that it delivers to all in the United Kingdom. It has highlighted ways for the relationships between the different Administrations to be strengthened. This report deserves to be given much more visibility than it has been, and is being, accorded.
I wish to focus on the issue of legislative consent and what is misleadingly called the Sewel convention. It was not a convention when it was first articulated, and it is not a convention now. It does not stipulate behaviour that is adhered to invariably. It is a statement of principle—of what can be described as best practice or the Government’s best endeavours. The understanding of its status was confused from the beginning and made worse by being embodied in the Scotland Act 2016 still under the rubric of a convention. I pointed out to the Government at the time that a convention in statute is a contradiction in terms. The Supreme Court in the Miller case recognised that it was no more than a political statement.
We need to get away from talking about the Sewel convention, in part because it is a constitutional nonsense, and because it invites a reaction from devolved Administrations when a measure is introduced. We need to focus on engagement at any early stage—as is delineated in this report—and build on what the Government variously claim is happening: engagement with devolved Administrations when legislation is being developed. As the report emphasises, that should be a two-way process: the devolved Governments should also engage with Whitehall when they are developing legislation. Alongside the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I endorse the recommendation of the committee that consent should be sought where delegated legislation covers devolved areas.
The Government are working on a memorandum of understanding with the devolved Administrations, which, as we have heard, is expected to be published later this year. This is the only positive element in the Government’s response to the committee’s report; otherwise, the Government are basically satisfied with what is presently in place. The response does not do justice to the committee’s considered report. Given the track record of the Constitution Committee in making the case for the union, and the prescience of its recommendations, it is crucial that the Government adopt a more positive stance and act on those recommendations. I do not want us to debate this again in 20 years’ time and say, “I told you so”. I look forward to the Minister engaging more positively than Pat McFadden’s letter does with this very important report—it deserves better.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the members of the Constitution Committee and the committee clerks for an excellent, comprehensive report, which I know will make essential reading for Ministers in this place and in the devolved legislatures. It will also be of particular interest to all of us who have to deal with, and sometimes grapple with, the Sewel convention.
This is a poignant occasion for those of us on these Benches. We know that our late noble friend Baroness Randerson would have relished the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. As a Welsh Office Minister in the coalition Government from 2012 to 2015, her dedication to devolution and her influence over its processes was immense. She was also a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, and I know how much pride she took in that role. She is sorely missed.
She and I had a conversation about the Sewel convention in the final months of the previous Conservative Government, when the convention had, once again, been breached. I mentioned how lucky she was to have been in office when things were easier. Her reply was characteristically clear, forthright and kind. She said, “It certainly wasn’t any easier. We worked hard, for long hours, sometimes late into the night, to make sure the Sewel convention wasn’t breached”.
For me, that summed up the difference between pre-2019 and the post-2019 reality we were then living in. Before the 2019 election, there was an understanding in Governments—including Conservative ones—of how precious our devolution settlements are to those of us who live in the devolved nations, and there was firm support of the convention. However, post 2019, Sewel almost seemed to become dispensable, sacrificed on the altar of UK nationalism and the then Conservative Government’s concept of binding the nation together.
The committee’s report confirms that the convention was breached 19 times in the four years after 2020 but had been breached only four times before 2020. This difference in attitudes to the convention, and to devolution itself, is highlighted in the report, with the committee calling for good will on the part of all four Governments of the UK. It emphasises the role of the UK Government, as the most powerful body, in recognising the impacts that their decisions may have on the other nations. Attitude and good will are of course impossible to legislate for, but I commend the committee on its recommendations for improving and strengthening the convention.
The committee calls for a culture of positive engagement to be added to the existing principles for intergovernmental relations. This would be a positive step forward that would make it possible for civil servants to remind Ministers in the UK Government, and in the devolved Governments, of the expectation that they should engage with one another.
The principle of early positive engagement is especially visible from this new UK Labour Government in relation to Wales, and I am grateful for that. With the exception of the Crown Estate Act—where, disappointingly, there was no prior consultation with the Welsh Government—legislative consent Motions from the Senedd now largely express satisfaction with discussions held with the UK Government. On some occasions, the Welsh Government may request the inclusion of their interests in a Bill.
However, I agree with the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in its call for
“a clear engagement timetable … This would provide a more transparent process so that legislatures, governments and stakeholders know what deadlines are being worked to”.
It is frustrating that the Second Reading of a Bill in your Lordships’ House can sometimes take place before the date of publication of the relevant Senedd committee’s report on the LCM. Better joint timetabling could remedy this and should, I believe, be included in the updating of the devolution guidance notes that the committee recommends.
I support these and other committee recommendations. I have to accept the reality that the Sewel convention is perfectly imperfect—or is it imperfectly perfect? I am not too sure. The use of “normally” in the assertion that the UK Government would not normally act in devolved matters leaves it open to interpretation, but it does prevent the devolved legislatures operating in a quasi-federal manner. Federalism would be a welcome step forward for those of us on these Benches, but it is probably a step too far for others.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Who knows what will happen in the future? They used to sell tickets for the Devolution Committee, which my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine chaired in 1998. They were wonderful affairs, setting up devolution right across the country—including, later, in Northern Ireland. The committee did a great job, but one thing it did not do very well was work out exactly how these devolved Administrations were going to work with each other or with the United Kingdom Government.
After nearly 26 years—I served as Welsh Secretary and as Northern Ireland Secretary in that period—I can say that it did not go very well. In fact, it went very badly at times. Relations were okay when it was the same political party, of course. For example, I could go to Cardiff on a Monday morning and talk to Rhodri Morgan to sort out the problems of the world—and I continued doing that—but it was not quite so easy in Scotland. When I later had to deal, in another capacity, with Alex Salmond, it was a very different picture altogether. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, when there are different parties in Cardiff, Edinburgh and London—as well as in Belfast, of course—it presents a totally different picture.
Over the years, the attempts to bring people together were pretty awful. Prime Ministers did not want to go to the meetings and rarely did. Although we were trying to deal with best practice, it was often too bureaucratic. The meetings were too infrequent. Civil servants wanted to devolve and forget, and let the devolved Administrations get on with things, yet we could learn a great deal from each other—and, eventually, we did. However, there was no real structure for doing that; what there was was wholly inadequate. Any communiqué that came from an intergovernmental meeting was utterly and completely useless—waffle of the worst possible sort that meant absolutely nothing—so, over the years, things got worse and worse. I pay credit to the last Conservative Government because they successfully started to change the way in which the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government worked. That was good, but there are a couple of things that we could look at; they have been partly highlighted by this excellent report from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake.
The first is the use of the territorial departments. There are a couple of paragraphs saying that it is a good thing to have them, but we need to look much more carefully at how they operate. It is a good idea that the Cabinet Office now takes responsibility for intergovernmental relations, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Pat McFadden and Nick Thomas-Symonds have a million other things to deal with. There must come a time when we have Ministers wholly dedicated to the question of devolution and relations between the Governments, and that has to work within the structure of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. How that operates I do not know, but those departments are entirely devoted to relations between those countries and the United Kingdom Government. Why do we not use them more? Why is that not seen as the way forward? There is not enough on that in the report and certainly not enough in the Government’s response, bearing in mind that those are three Cabinet Ministers dealing with the devolved areas and Administrations.
Next, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the structure we are dealing with today that addresses interparliamentary relations rather than Government-to-Government and Executive-to-Executive relations. But there is an organisation that does precisely that, which resulted from strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, which I and my Irish counterpart chaired all those years ago. We set up a sophisticated mechanism by which the devolved Parliaments—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly—and the Irish Parliament and both Houses of this Parliament get together regularly, twice a year, with sub-committees. It is the only way that Parliaments compare notes and best practice. Why can we not look at that as a way to build on the best practice of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly?
Those are just a couple of suggestions. There is a lot of work to be done. This is extremely important. It has improved in the last couple of years, but there is a long way to go yet.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I was amused to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the lack of activity of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, during the referendum. Unlike the noble Lord, I was involved in that campaign; my job was to be sent along, by my Labour and Liberal Democrat comrades in Better Together, to tell the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to do less in the referendum rather than more.
As other noble Lords have, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and her committee on an excellent, thoughtful and clear-eyed assessment of the governance of the union. I will focus my remarks on a couple of salient points.
I found a breath of fresh air the acknowledgment in the report of how much the governance of the union requires a constructive attitude and culture from all parties. The chemistry is just as important as the physics of the processes and structures that are put in place. It is a great testament to the union that it has been sustained in what have been very choppy political waters. That demonstrates to me that many of the structures and joint working arrangements are actually working pretty well. As we have read in the report, many of them were set up in 2022 with the joint agreement of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Perhaps things were not quite as bad after 2019 as some of us may remember.
However, the greatest threat to the union will always be if it is seen to fail to operate. If the governance of the United Kingdom is seen to be broken, why should that union not be clearly questioned? Her late Majesty the Queen famously said that the monarchy needed to be seen to be believed. In my view, this is just as important for the functioning of the governance and joint working of the structures of the union. I therefore welcome the establishment and optical importance of the Council of the Nations and Regions of the UK. However—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister, as I have asked her about it in your Lordships’ House—I believe that body is less important than the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council.
The Council of the Nations and Regions should not be in any way a replacement for regular meetings between the Prime Minister and First Ministers, who all, as Crown Ministers, have a wider responsibility than purely to their regions. I do not want to denigrate the roles of the mayors or indeed that of the Deputy Prime Minister, but there needs to be a very close and connected working relationship between the Prime Minister and the First Ministers—and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister as well. What does the Minister foresee as the timetable for prime ministerial and First Minister council meetings going forward? The report suggests that there were inevitably tensions between the UK Government centrally and the devolved Administrations during Covid, but that was actually the time when there was cause for regular contact between the Prime Minister and First Ministers, which can only have been a good thing.
My second point of emphasis, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, is to support the importance of the relevant territorial offices being engaged in all bilaterals between individual departments and devolved Administrations. The Civil Service landscape across departments varies in expertise when dealing with the devolved Administrations. I know that it is not common for the Treasury to be praised for joint working, but it had an excellent team when I was in government, which understood nuance and joint working with the devolved Administrations. However, in too many departments, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, including the Foreign Office, devolved Administrations were often not taken very seriously and continuity to ensure that good relations were built was not always there. Can the Minister suggest how the territorial offices’ role is going to be improved in these areas?
Since 2016, the union faced a difficult time as the implications of Brexit and Covid were wrestled with, just at the same time as there was an Administration in Holyrood prepared to do anything to fulfil their aspiration for the end of the union. I ask noble Lords to reflect that perhaps that was the reason why perhaps not everything could be shared with the devolved Administration in Edinburgh as it should perhaps have been. With this excellent report, I hope that the Government will continue to focus on strengthening structures while also encouraging a constructive culture of working for the people across the United Kingdom.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her very clear presentation of the report and all the work that she did on this report and many others as chairman of the committee. She did an excellent job.
Devolution is about difference. It involves recognising that the nations and regions of the United Kingdom are different, with different needs, and that they are different in how they address those needs and in their political composition. Devolution acknowledges this and has mechanisms for coping with difference, particularly where it impacts on the UK as a whole, or other devolved Administrations, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, clearly recognised in his very experienced contribution. This committee, in successive reports, has sought to ensure that the mechanisms are fit for purpose, are used and are used in a constructive way.
We occasionally lapsed into pessimism. There is a line in the summary of the report that says that
“the reality of different political parties holding power in different parts of the UK is that publicity engendered by high-profile public disputes will at times be more appealing than resolving issues through established governance structures”.
Sadly, I think that we can all recognise that as being true, and we can recognise certain periods when that was even truer than usual. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, threw light on some of the dark places in trying to make devolution work.
I turn to the Sewel convention, and I use the word “convention”—with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, looking at me—not in the constitutional law sense but with an admission that it is not the law but a political convention. That is how the committee describes it, not as a constitutional convention but as a political convention; it is a matter of terminology. The need to observe the conditions and principles that the convention embodies was well put forward by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and referred to by several other contributors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke in the debate, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she did on common frameworks, which are there to ensure that we can have a single market and that there are not adverse effects from what happens in one part of the United Kingdom on other parts—or, if there are, they are recognised and prepared for. That is an integral part of the devolution procedure, yet the internal market Act, and the passing of it, was one of the most obvious cases in which the Sewel practice was not followed, disgracefully and repeatedly.
Much of what the report is about is the positive spirit in which we need to engage these processes; the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, illustrated that when talking about the Civil Service. To start with, departmental Ministers need to understand devolution better—that applies not so much to the territorial departments but the other departments for which it is not central to their way of thinking. Civil servants in all departments need a better understanding of devolution and to avoid what one of our witnesses described as the unitary mindset, which is still present and needs to be dealt with.
As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated, the territorial department has a potential role, but there is a difficulty here in getting the right balance for where it should be in the constitutional structure. We saw stages, for example, when the Johnson Government became a rival Government of the respective countries. In relation to Scotland, they were trying visibly to compete on who would build the bridge: the UK Government or the devolved Government.
Somebody needs to speak in this debate about England, because not much has been said about England, as in the whole devolution story. Some of us are not entirely happy with the method that has been chosen to bring devolution to England, because it involves single individuals having a lot of concentrated power, which is a very confused and jumbled pattern, even for those who advocate it. However, a genuine attempt has been made to build on what is there as part of the overall devolution pattern.
We are to have the Council of the Nations and Regions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, that the meetings of the Prime Minister and the First Ministers will prove more important than that council. I am bound to inquire what the council will do. I have a real fear that it will become simply a bureaucratic process that everybody has to go through, but which is not a real contributor to the effective working of the constitution. There was the proposed appointment, which did not happen in the end, of Sue Gray—the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham—as the Prime Minister’s envoy to the nations and regions. Nobody else, as far as I know, was appointed to that job when she was not appointed to it, which suggests that the whole thing is surrounded by a miasma of confusion and nobody is quite sure how it will work or whether it can be made to work.
In general, the Government’s response to the committee has been encouraging and constructive. However, one area where they have been particularly weak—as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others—is around delegated legislation and the application of the same principle that Sewel applied to primary legislation to delegated legislation. Statutory instruments are the means by which many of the detailed changes in people’s lives are made. Nowadays, they, rather than primary legislation, set out so much of the detail that determines what people can buy, what conditions they can educate their children in and so on. There is enormous potential for trespass on devolved powers and a lack of a working process for consultation—that has to be dealt with.
When the Government responded to us on that, all they said was that they noted the committee’s
“recommendations on developing criteria and publishing guidance on the use of delegated powers … The Government will consider this as part of its work on engagement with the devolved governments on legislation”.
That may be true, but it is pretty weak, feeble and unconvincing. These are important decisions, and they are a test case for making the machinery—through which devolution can operate when there are differences—that can be made to work. I therefore call on the Minister—when she comes to respond to the committee, not just today but later in the year in more detail—to address this problem before it gets too serious.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, there are moments in political life when structures matter and there are moments when tone matters. There are moments—rarer, but no less important—when what matters most is constitutional clarity: the discipline of understanding where authority lies, who is responsible and how the pieces of a great union fit together. This debate touches on all three, and it is a pleasure to speak in it, especially as I was a member of the committee at the time of the report’s publication.
The Constitution Committee’s report is serious and valuable, and I very much pay tribute to the brilliant clerks and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her excellent and calm chairmanship. It is fair to say that we were not a committee of shrinking violets, and the noble Baroness displayed a degree of patience and diplomacy that would have made Metternich proud.
The Government’s response also recognises much of what must be done to strengthen the practical bonds between our Governments. But it is important to be aware of the potential risks that could corrode the foundations of our union even as we speak the language of strengthening it.
That is why the Conservatives have always worked to strengthen the union. Mutually respected working structures and processes for engagement are essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, highlighted. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the 2022 Review of Intergovernmental Relations—here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McInnes—to strengthen the structures, improve transparency and establish, for the first time, a properly formalised dispute resolution system. It was a Conservative Government that delivered the UK shared prosperity fund, the levelling up funds and direct UK investment into all parts of the country. And it was a Conservative Government that delivered more than £3 billion of levelling-up funding for Scotland, over £2.5 billion for Wales and over £1 billion for Northern Ireland—funding provided on top of the Barnett formula. That record matters, but it is also important to recognise and guard against the potential new risks that lie ahead.
One of the greatest risks lies in the Government’s plan to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding on the Sewel convention. The Sewel convention, as confirmed in the Miller 1 judgment—here I am afraid I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and not my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—is primarily a political convention, not a legal obligation. It rests on trust: that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent but that it retains the sovereign right to do so. It is deliberately unenforceable in law, and that is its strength. Conventions survive through mutual respect, not judicial supervision. The committee was right to reject calls to codify Sewel. To invite the courts into political disputes would shatter the union’s foundations. Should any future proposals move in that direction, they must be firmly resisted.
Even without legislation, the Government’s approach carries risks. Embedding the Sewel convention in a formal memorandum of understanding, without parliamentary scrutiny, would hollow out the convention’s political character, turning it into a bureaucratic entitlement. It would replace political trust with procedural expectation and could turn Westminster’s sovereign discretion into the false appearance of obligation. The risk is not theoretical. We have already seen how sensitive and contested questions of legislative consent have become. These disputes reveal a deeper truth: determining whether a measure affects devolved competence is often a matter of political judgment. Embedding such judgments into a MoU risks giving them the false appearance of legal fact, inviting litigation where there should be political debate.
Can the Minister explain how the Government will safeguard the United Kingdom’s constitutional integrity if the memorandum of understanding creates procedural obligations that the courts may one day be asked to enforce? Have the Government prepared a legal issues memorandum assessing the risk that the MoU could create justiciable rights? If so, will they publish that memorandum or place it in the Library? In line with paragraphs 5 to 8 of the Attorney-General’s Legal Risk Guidance, have the Government formally assessed the likelihood that the memorandum could be subject to judicial review and the risk that any resulting obligations could be enforced by the courts? Will they publish a summary of that legal risk assessment?
These are important considerations. Administrative process cannot confer constitutional authority. An MoU which redefines a constitutional principle could tear constitutional authority from Parliament, turn legislative consent into a weapon and leave the union weaker in law and in spirit.
The committee also recommends a formal “principle of positive engagement”. This would codify a duty for Governments to work together on developing and implementing policies of common concern. The intention is understandable, but there are inherent risks. Formalising “positive engagement” must not risk shifting consultation into a form of co-decision, implying that devolved agreement is required not just on devolved matters but on areas properly reserved to Westminster. Over time, this would erode the constitutional boundary between consultation and consent. It would encourage a culture where every major policy risks becoming a four-nation negotiation, undermining clear executive responsibility. The union must remain a living political community, not drift toward a federation of mutual vetoes. Although we support positive engagement, it must always be within the constitutional framework that gives the union its enduring strength.
Beyond these major issues, there are other important issues on which we must reflect. It is only in the last six or seven years that identified structures and processes for regular engagement have emerged. It is therefore critical that they are monitored, and they require proper record-keeping and retention of institutional memory to have an established point of reference. Can the Minister confirm that this will happen?
The common frameworks process, despite understandable delays, remains a constructive example of the importance of intergovernmental co-operation. I pay tribute to the tremendous work of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
The new Council of the Nations and Regions has made a strong start, but it must complement, not compete with, the direct and formal meetings between the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments, as several noble Lords have mentioned. Likewise, the territorial offices—the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office—remain critical in reinforcing the UK’s voice across government. Their role must be strengthened, not sidelined. How will these processes work together? How will the Government ensure that the council strengthens the union, rather than confusing or weakening it?
On secondary legislation and delegated powers, the Government should listen carefully to the committee’s warnings. The goal must be genuine engagement, without ceding the right of the UK Parliament to legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Finally, I turn to the crucial issue of Civil Service impartiality within the devolved Administrations, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. As the Government’s response acknowledges, the Devolution and You programme was launched in 2015, yet nearly a decade later, senior civil servants still struggle with basic devolution principles, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, pointed out. Furthermore, the Constitution Committee’s 17th report of 2022-23, Permanent Secretaries: Their Appointment and Removal, recommended that civil servants in devolved Governments must work only within devolved competence and that the Cabinet Secretary should issue clear guidance to that effect. It found that senior civil servants in Scotland and Wales, although accountable to devolved Governments, remain part of a single United Kingdom Civil Service, and recommended that the Cabinet Secretary manage any challenges, issue guidance and require Permanent Secretaries to escalate concerns and seek written directions if necessary.
The then Government accepted these conclusions and said that they were considering how best to implement them, so I ask the Minister to confirm the following. Is it still the Government’s position that civil servants must work only within devolved competence? Has the promised guidance been issued? If not, will it be published, and when? These are serious constitutional commitments. Clear action is now needed. The Civil Service must remain a single and impartial institution, serving the Crown and the union it upholds.
To conclude, strengthening the union requires more than good process; it requires clarity of authority, discipline in constitutional thinking and respect for the enduring sovereignty of this Parliament. The union cannot be held together by promises alone; it takes action, trust, respect and the political will to defend what we have built together. In the end, the strength of the union will be measured not by what we say but by what we do.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for securing this excellent debate and the Constitution Committee for its report and the interest it continues to show in this area. As the spokesperson for the Cabinet Office as well as the Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland Offices, I recognise the importance of the issues raised today, so I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. I should also put on record that, as someone who was born in Scotland—can noble Lords tell?—and who lives in England, I genuinely appreciate the importance of making government and governance work for all nations and regions in the UK.
Let me be clear: as the Prime Minister has said, to ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to give greater importance to respect and collaboration in the service of all people, across all parts of this country. This is essential for effective governance, to tackle our shared challenges and build a United Kingdom that works for everyone.
This Government were elected on the promise of change, renewal and reset. To do this, it is our duty to work in the service of the people to deliver on their priorities. That is why in our manifesto we committed to clean up politics and return it to the service of working people through resetting the UK Government’s relationship with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—although, as noble Lords have highlighted, not least as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, has stated, this is chemistry as much as it is physics, which is a line I think I am going to use repeatedly going forward. We are doing just that.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I assure your Lordships’ House that our reset and re-engagement has been based on a relationship of mutual respect. That is how we are seeking to re-engage with the Governments across the United Kingdom. This work began on day one of the new Government, with the Prime Minister speaking to the heads of the devolved Governments within hours of his appointment. He then visited Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast respectively to meet them in the following days.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, this Government genuinely believe in devolution, which is why we undertook this reset from day one. These early and proactive actions of the Prime Minister have led the way for the rest of our Government. The Prime Minister has been clear that rebuilding the country requires UK-wide delivery by working effectively with all levels of government. That is why, in our manifesto, we committed to ensuring the structures and institutions of intergovernmental working improve relationships and collaboration on policy.
With regard to the principle of positive engagement, in response to my noble friends Lady Andrews and Lady Drake, the principles for intergovernmental relations were jointly agreed between the UK Government and the devolved Governments as part of the 2022 Review of Intergovernmental Relations. There are no current plans to reopen this and add a new principle. Instead, we are focusing on how we embed the spirit of positive engagement in our work alongside the devolved Governments at all levels as we reset.
There is now frequent, proactive engagement between Ministers and their devolved counterparts on a range of issues. Noble Lords have rightly pointed out that this is not just about how often we speak but about the quality and calibre of what we are discussing, at the same time making sure that regular engagement is a theme. The structures set out in the 2022 Review of Intergovernmental Relations are functioning well and have withstood changes across all Governments. There have been 20 formal meetings of these structures since the general election. The top-tier meeting between the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments has taken place. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, these meetings will happen twice a year.
The Interministerial Standing Committee and Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee have met. However, we really should have thought about the names of these groups when we had the meeting. The portfolio-level interministerial groups are up and running. These latter groups provide an important place for discussion of the impacts upon each other of policy changes across the different Governments and for shared learning and co-operation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, raised, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beith, they are meeting as early as possible to discuss legislation before it comes in front of your Lordships’ House. For example, just last month the Minister for Energy attended the Interministerial Group for Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change alongside Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, where they discussed local energy initiatives and benefits to communities.
We are using the intergovernmental structures to ensure that there is collaboration with the devolved Governments. These structures help to ensure that the importance of devolution is reflected in policy-making and that effective outcomes are delivered across all parts of the United Kingdom.
In response to my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Andrews, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on the qualitative progress in transparency reporting and how our principles are being embedded in practice, in the first month of government we have been focusing on actions rather than reports. We are currently considering how we can supplement the impartial Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat’s annual report, the first of which is forthcoming, with our own reporting from a UK Government perspective. These principles matter not just to those formal structures set out in the intergovernmental relations review but apply more broadly. Overall accountability for the system of intergovernmental relations includes adherence to its principles collectively with the top-tier intergovernmental structure: the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments.
In addition to these structures, as many noble Lords have highlighted, we committed in our manifesto to establishing a new Council of the Nations and Regions. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beith, this is not a tick-box exercise or a talking shop. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, we believe that the Council of the Nations and Regions is complementary, hence the timings of the meetings, with the top tier of the IGR meeting at the same time as CNR, with the CNR meeting following.
The council brings together the UK Government, the devolved Governments and the mayors of strategic authorities to determine actions for tackling some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges that the Government face. The first meeting, which was held in Edinburgh on 11 October last year, was delivered within the first 100 days of this Government. The Prime Minister has been clear that the purpose of the council is a genuine, meaningful and focused partnership to unlock the whole of the UK’s untapped potential to make everyone, everywhere, better off. The inaugural meeting discussed the broader growth picture and maximising inward investment opportunities ahead of the international investment summit. That summit then delivered a commitment of £63 billion of private investment into the UK, which will create close to 38,000 new jobs across the country.
However, these formal structures are not the sum total of engagement. Collaboration also happens on a day-to-day basis across government. This cross-government co-ordination and engagement with the devolved Governments is supported by Minister Alexander. As a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, he covers the union and devolution policy across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in addition to his existing responsibilities at the Department for Business and Trade.
What is really important is that we can come together when it matters. That is how this Government are delivering for the people of the United Kingdom, whether that is through the UK Government or national Governments coming together when their people need them. We saw this earlier in the year when Storm Éowyn made landfall. Ahead of the storm, the Cabinet Office, alongside the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, issued an emergency alert to approximately 4.5 million people in Northern Ireland and the central belt of Scotland containing information on how to stay safe; this was the largest real-life use of the emergency alert to date. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also chaired a ministerial COBRA meeting with Cabinet colleagues, the First Minister of Scotland and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland to discuss what support and mutual aid the UK Government could provide to Northern Ireland.
I must stress this: we are not done. We will continue to build on this. We will continue to collaborate with our colleagues in the devolved Governments. We want to continue to work in service of the people of the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lady Andrews, as we set out in our manifesto, we are determined that the structures of intergovernmental working are used to improve collaboration on policy. In that spirit, we committed to strengthening the Sewel convention—this was specifically in our manifesto; I have a copy here if noble Lords would like one—which is something that I know this House and the Constitution Committee take very seriously. The convention is a vital part in ensuring all of the relevant democratic institutions have a say in the legislation that concerns matters within their competence. As such, we are taking the time to get the MoU right.
In the meantime, it is important to note that the Government have already been acting very much in the spirit of that commitment. I am sure that those with a keen interest will already know that 11 legislative consent Motions have been passed in this Session, with a further 14 positive memorandums recommending consent. Our ambition is that this trend continues.
I turn to noble Lords’ specific questions on the Sewel convention. The Government have set out their commitment to strengthening the convention by setting out the new MoU. We hope to move forward with the agreement and publication later this year. Discussions with the devolved Governments will continue in the coming months in order to finalise a draft. With regard to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, those will of course form part of our thinking, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this point, given where we are in the negotiations.
On the question of secondary legislation and the Sewel convention—several noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked about this—although the Sewel convention does not apply to secondary legislation, UK Ministers have made commitments not to use SIs in devolved areas without the agreement of the devolved Governments.
My noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Andrews asked for an update on the programme on implementing common frameworks. I fear that my noble friend Lady Andrews will be much more informed about that than me. However, I can say that 28 common frameworks are provisionally operational, with one having been implemented fully and three at an earlier stage. At the Interministerial Standing Committee meeting in December, all four Governments agreed to finalise the remaining frameworks by the end of this year; we are making best efforts to facilitate this.
While these constitutional issues and discussions are important for the function of good governance, we have also been focusing on delivering across the UK on the issues that matter to people, working closely with the devolved Governments and local partners to do so. This is clearly demonstrated through our work to establish Great British Energy, a new publicly owned company which will own, manage and operate clean power projects up and down the country, generating cheap home-grown electricity. We are delivering on our first step in establishing GB Energy by providing £125 million to set up the new institution at its home in Aberdeen.
In addition, we have published Invest 2035, which sets out a modern industrial strategy that will help deliver growth across the whole of the UK. The industrial strategy is being designed and implemented in close collaboration with local, regional and devolved Governments, the details of which will be published in the coming months. Partnership with devolved Governments will make this a UK-wide effort and support the considerable sectoral strengths of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I have a series of additional answers, but hopefully I will not detain noble Lords too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the Civil Service. Cross-posting of civil servants can play a key role in the building of first-hand experience of working in another Government. We are keen to make long-term intergovernmental placement opportunities more readily available by working with colleagues in the devolved Governments to remove barriers to them. We are also piloting an intergovernmental shadowing scheme that will provide civil servants across the UK with a more informal but still practical experience of how government works. I will revert on the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about an update on Permanent Secretaries. On impartiality, she and the Committee will be aware that all civil servants are expected to follow the Civil Service Code and the impartiality requirements laid out in it.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I take very seriously the role of the territorial offices, given how much time I spend in them, and the roles of their Secretaries of State. It is the role of the Secretaries of State and the territorial officials in the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office to represent the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the UK Government and to advocate for government policies in those nations. We see that working every day, whether that is the city deals being delivered in Northern Ireland, legacy, GB Energy or the additional funding delivered for coal-tip safety in Wales.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that we could have had part of this debate last Friday, when we had a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the role of recommendations for public inquiries. He made a valid point both last week and today about how the Government should reflect constantly on recommendations and ensure that they are answered.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for reminding us of the dedicated work that her and many noble Lords’ friend, Baroness Randerson, did to make sure that devolution actually worked. I pay tribute to her for her work. If it is acceptable, I will revert to the noble Baroness on Senedd timing and the recommendations of the report.
As ever, I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for highlighting the importance of making devolution work and how difficult it can be. I think we can all appreciate the challenges he had in his various roles in government. He mentioned Alex Salmond, but he also had to deal across parties in Northern Ireland to make devolution work at some challenging points. I also thank him for his work on the Good Friday agreement, which, as he said, laid out alternative options. I will consider and reflect on what he said about interparliamentary assemblies and how we can make sure that their roles are reflected going forward.
On that note, I thank all noble Lords once again for their participation in today’s debate, but particularly my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lords of the Constitution Committee for their report on the governance of the union. I know that noble Lords will continue to take a keen interest in this matter and, undoubtedly, ask me many questions both here and in the Chamber. I look forward to continuing the important discussion we have had today.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I will not keep you too long. I thank my noble friend Lady Anderson for her fulsome reply. It is much appreciated. I think my noble friend Lady Andrews and I feel that there is a certain timidity on the positive engagement principle: having drafted something in 2022 does not necessarily mean that it is set in stone, so there should still be an aspiration to stay with that principle. If you win that principle with all the other devolved Administrations it will definitely be indicative of progress.
On the annual transparency report, I am sure the committee will love to continue engaging with the Government. It is really a very important part of it; actually, if done correctly, it would be a clear statement of faith by the Government that they do want to change things.
I did not refer particularly to the impact of the Council of the Nations and Regions because it was so new, but the follow-up report, Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution, which is heading this way, starts to pick up some of the issues that people have articulated today.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Anderson say that she was upbeat and that the work of the Government was not done. That was very positive and welcome. The memorandum of understanding is certainly awaited with interest. I completely agree with her that it needs to be done correctly but, equally, it needs to be ambitious as well, we hope.
On secondary legislation, the Government’s use of such powers and Henry VIII powers, there is actually a bit of a precedent with the Fisheries Bill, in a sense that somebody put their toe in the water first, which starts to embrace some of the things. The committee has not and never has proposed a rewriting of the constitutional settlement, but the most important thing, which we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and many others, is that the danger for the Government is that if it is perceived that Ministers are empowered too easily with delegated and Henry VIII powers, with the intention of undermining the devolved legislatures, then that union cohesion comes under a lot of pressure. That is the issue that is being struggled with: that sense of faith, or otherwise, by the devolved Governments as to how the UK Government are behaving in that respect.
Finally, as ever, one of the most perceptive comments came from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—as an ex-chair of the Constitution Committee, I would not have expected anything less from him—when he said that the context of this report has to be understood. He is right: the Constitution Committee’s reports are predicated on a belief that the UK is a joint endeavour and shared asset for all the nations, regions and communities. That is our opening premise on which all of our analysis is made, and has been by Constitution Committees since they engaged with this issue. That is so important. That means that any Government not only have a responsibility to improve the relations of today—obviously, the current Government are seeking to do that—but have to build something that will weather future stresses. That is the bit that is still in play. Obviously, we will look to the Government to build something that has the capacity so that we do not see what we started to see with Brexit and other problems.
I thank everybody who participated today. It has been a great debate, and good luck to the committee taking this forward with the Government.
Engineering Biology (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Don’t fail to scale: seizing the opportunity of engineering biology (1st Report, HL Paper 55).
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce for debate the Science and Technology Committee report entitled Don’t Fail to Scale: Seizing the Opportunity of Engineering Biology. I am looking forward to hearing the contributions from others to the debate, and particularly to the response on behalf of DSIT from the Science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, when I am hoping we will hear of some progress.
I thank all committee members past and present who participated in the report. This was my last report as chair of the committee, and I am pleased to note that my noble friend Lord Mair, the new chair, will speak later. As ever, much, if not the majority, of the preparation and the quality of this report is down to our excellent committee staff, the clerks John Turner and Matthew Manning, the policy analyst Thomas Hornigold and the committee operations officer, Sid Gurung. We were also very fortunate to be supported by a POST fellow, Benedict Smith.
The inquiry started in May 2020 and published its report in January 2025, with the government response following in March. The inquiry heard from approximately 30 witnesses in person and published 53 pieces of written evidence. Contributors included engineering biology academics, companies, international witnesses and the Government themselves.
What was our motivation for this inquiry? Engineering biology is a rapidly developing field involving the use of tools of synthetic biology to solve practical problems. We chose to conduct this inquiry for two reasons. The first was the promise of the technology. In recent years, our ability to sequence, edit, analyse and synthesise DNA has developed very rapidly thanks to CRISPR machine learning and handheld DNA sequencing. This unlocks applications for synthetic biology in areas such as energy, medicines, manufacturing, agriculture and materials. Biotechnologies could allow us to replace fossil fuels as the feedstock for the production of chemicals and plastics or enable better recycling of rare earth metals from electrical devices. Both could be very important steps in moving towards net zero and to a sustainable, more circular economy.
Everyone seems to be focused on cyber and AI these days, but we must not forget that most technological development requires at some point physical products or actual stuff as well as capabilities in cyberspace. Engineering biology provides us with tools to manipulate atoms in physical space, a critical capability to address many of our key global challenges in sustainability, climate and health.
Secondly, this is an area that the Government have already identified as a priority for the UK. Indeed, it is one of DSIT’s five critical technologies, and the UK has historically had strength in these areas thanks to our life sciences sector and early investments in synthetic biology. The committee agrees with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and the Government that this is an area with huge growth potential for the UK. But our inquiry found that the rest of the world is catching up with us and, indeed, potentially overtaking us.
Our report proposed urgent actions that the Government needed to take to address this issue. The Government’s response, while positive in some areas, describing ongoing policies, deferred a lot of details to the spending review and the publication of the industrial strategy, but our overall message is one of urgency. Increasingly, it is one of some anxiety over how science funding will fare in a tough spending review ahead. The Minister himself highlighted that there is a small and closing window of opportunity to realise the benefits to our economy that these technologies can provide—otherwise, we will find ourselves using the products of engineering biology developed elsewhere.
Our report made recommendations around strategy, skills, regulation, infrastructure, investment, adoption, governance, safety and public acceptability. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will address only some of those points now and leave others, particularly details around scaling up, where the committee has a new inquiry, to be covered by other Members.
On funding, as the Minister we ask the Government to recommit to the previous Government’s target of £2 billion over 10 years. That is not a vast sum in the context of an accelerating global race and the potential benefits of gaining a leading position in some key areas. Let us take biofoundries, for example. These are facilities that allow biotech researchers to prototype and test their ideas rapidly. In 2019, there were 16 facilities worldwide, five of them in the UK. Just five years later, there were 36 facilities worldwide, and still just five of them in the UK. UKRI told us in written evidence that it had funded approximately £700 million in synthetic biology research since 2007. We heard that, in Shenzhen in China, $750 million has been spent on a single biofoundry. We urgently need to see a serious commitment to funding engineering biology R&D, or falling behind will not just be a matter of risk; it will be a matter of fact. However, the Government’s response did not make this commitment, and we must wait until the spending review and DSIT’s ability to allocate its budget. We hear that the Minister is developing plans for long-term R&D spending, which we welcome. Inconsistency is one of the things that allows us to fall behind—but will he be able to commit today to this funding target, or at least let us know when we can expect more details?
On infrastructure, as a result of what one witness described as a “batteries not included” approach, the biofoundries are funded through cost recovery from the researchers who use them and subsidised by the universities that host them. We heard that, in many cases, this makes them too expensive for researchers and start-ups to use; with universities facing their own financial crisis, that is not a sustainable situation. The Government have a manifesto pledge to introduce 10-year funding for key research infrastructure, so can the Minister confirm sustained support for research infrastructure like biofoundries, and that that will be part of this pledge?
Will the Minister also commit to mapping and supporting the existing infrastructure across the university sector and the catapults, including the Centre for Process Innovation, or CPI, to help lower barriers to access? In due course, the sector will need scale-up infrastructure to compete with offers available in Europe and elsewhere. The UK Science and Technology framework said that the UK would have a
“long-term national plan for research and innovation infrastructure”.
Could we have a progress update on this? The Government Office for Science has produced some good research about the sector’s infrastructure needs. Will it be acted on, and can we expect announcements of new research infrastructure for the sector?
A strategy is clearly critical. The Government need a plan for engineering biology as part of their industrial strategy. The committee welcomes the intention to have an industrial strategy that identifies critical technologies that the UK should support. It will also need to mobilise significant investment, in challenging fiscal circumstances, really to move the dial on growth. However, the current consultation suggests that the strategy will focus on eight very broad sectors, of which engineering biology could fit into at least four—“life sciences”, “digital and technologies”, “advanced manufacturing” or “clean energy”—while DSIT’s investment in the area suggests that it could also fit into “defence”. We think it important that there is clarity on how critical foundational technologies such as engineering biology will be supported by the industrial strategy. We need reassurance that they will not get lost because every sector thinks that one of the others is picking it up.
In the light of its broad sectoral focus, can the Minister explain how engineering biology and, more generally, the work of DSIT on critical technologies fit into the industrial strategy approach? Will we see institutions such as the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank and British Patient Capital, which aim to support the objectives of the industrial strategy, be upskilled, empowered, enabled and eager to invest in early-stage and scaling companies using novel engineering biology technologies? Will we see a co-ordinated industrial strategy that does not just fund a few projects or sectors but aligns all of the levers—skills training, public and private investment, public procurement, regulation, infrastructure, mandates and incentives—to support engineering biology?
One approach that we think could help is a high-profile national champion for engineering biology. Our committee recommended that a “national sector champion” be appointed to help co-ordinate cross-government efforts. The Government’s response was somewhat coy. They said that sector champions can be useful and that they will “explore the feasibility of” this. Can the Minister make a firmer commitment on a sector champion?
The Minister will, I hope, bear with me now as I move on to what I would call a perennial topic for our committee: visas for scientists and engineers. This is an issue that engineering biology witnesses raised specifically, but so have just about every group of witnesses from whom we have heard in our recent committee inquiries. Here, the Government’s response was the most disappointing. We wrote a letter to the Home Office in January describing the UK’s visa policy towards scientists as an “act of national self-harm”; that may sound harsh, but it reflects what we felt.
By many comparable metrics, UK visa fees are among the highest in the world. We award only a few thousand global talent visas a year to the best and the brightest, but the Royal Society has found that the upfront costs for a global talent visa are in excess of £5,000 per person for the immigration health surcharge alone, rising to £20,000 for a family of four. For around £40 million a year—a rounding error on the NHS budget—we are putting up a huge barrier to exactly the young, talented researchers whom we need to help grow our economy. In some cases, these costs end up being borne by research institutions, eating into the funding available for research. Cancer Research UK wrote to us saying that it will spend £700,000 a year on covering increasing visa costs—that is £700,000 of money donated by the public that will not be spent on cancer research.
We recommend that the UK rethinks its immigration policy for skilled scientific and technical workers, expands the global talent visa and reduces the burden of upfront costs. These are not new ideas; we said the same things to a previous Home Secretary back in 2022 during our people and skills inquiry but, disappointingly, we have not seen any progress. I expect that the Minister agrees with me that this issue needs to be addressed. The Government were elected on a pledge to reduce overall immigration numbers, but does that really require putting up these barriers to people we recognise as global talent?
The recommendations are not new, but the global context is. Thousands of scientists, especially in the biomedical sciences, vaccines, clean energy and climate areas are seeing grants rescinded and positions terminated by the new US Administration. Surveys show that many may wish to relocate to Europe. Other countries have recognised this enormous opportunity: for example, the Spanish Government have boosted US-focused funding for their “Attract” programme to attract and retain science and innovation talent. We urgently need something similar. Will the Minister advocate strongly to his colleagues that our short-sighted approach must end, and we need specific measures in the immigration White Paper to attract the best and brightest scientists to the UK?
To conclude, spending on science and technology is not just a “nice to have”. The UK has had over a decade of slow productivity growth and fifteen years of stagnant wage growth. This is driving instability in our politics and stretching our public services. That is why the Government have a growth mission, and engineering biology can be a sector that drives growth.
Investment, especially in high-growth technology sectors, is the most obvious route out of this. A new report from PwC and GO-Science suggests that half of UK growth over the next decade will come from the advanced technologies of engineering biology and AI. The UK still has advantages in engineering biology, especially with its life sciences pedigree and the NHS, but we are ceding ground in science and technology to other countries. No, the UK is not the US or China—but we nevertheless still have a lot of advantages: an excellent science base with research that remains world-class, universities that attract global talent, significant research infrastructure to build on and a Government that we believe value science.
Above all, however, there is a growing consensus that something urgently needs to change to address this decline. I do not mean to suggest that this is easy. It requires us to prioritise; it requires a well-co-ordinated, long-term and committed strategy across government; it requires us to get the best out of the assets we have; and it requires us to build the capacity of the state and private sector to support science and technology from blue-skies research through to scaled-up industries. The Government’s response has shown some promising signs of policy development and commitment to this technology and wider measures to enable scaling up, but much bolder action is needed. It needs investment in research and development that is stable, focused, and sufficient; investment in people, both trained here and attracted here from overseas; investment in cutting-edge laboratories and facilities with low barriers to access; investment in the research infrastructure that makes discoveries and developments possible; investors, both in government procurement and in the private sector, who are skilled, experienced and empowered to assess the benefits of engineering biology; investment in our regulatory capacity, so it can lead, not follow developments; and investment from the public, pension funds and private sector in companies that scale up in the UK. We know that the Government recognise this opportunity and the areas where action is required: they must now move from recognition to decisive action.
Some will say that we cannot afford to invest in technologies of the future, such as engineering biology, right now. This would be to fall into the same trap the UK has for the last decade or more. The truth is, we cannot afford not to—otherwise, the benefits of engineering biology will be realised elsewhere. That narrow window of opportunity the Minister referred to is closing and we cannot afford to miss it. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Brown—on this committee I like to think we are all noble friends—and to thank her for the way she led us through an exceptionally interesting inquiry. I endorse all the comments that she made about our staff and advisers, some of whom are present today.
I thank all our witnesses—I think there were about 30—and am grateful for the evidence that we received; there were about 50 submissions. It is important for the science community outside this House to understand that we really appreciate the effort they make to provide evidence for us and the expertise they bring to bear. Their contributions enrich the House and enable us to have a better understanding of an area such as this which is fast-moving and full of enormous potential. I, for one, as a member, learned a great deal over the course of our inquiry.
It is interesting to me that this is a precursor debate for the debate we are going to have in due course when our current inquiry gets published and is eventually debated. The reason why we have embarked on our current inquiry is precisely because this country is often a leader in discovery. We are pretty good at spin-outs and start-ups, but we are failing at scale-ups, hence our subtitle.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister present for this debate, because I, for one, would like to feel that he thinks that a committee such as ours and reports such as the one that we have produced are designed to help him, as a Minister, to argue the case within the Government, and are seen as constructive. I might add that it would also be helpful to have a Treasury Minister here because in future we will need a change in the Treasury’s mindset if we are to make real progress in the crucial role of scaling up. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will be able to confirm today the £2 billion of funding over 10 years promised by the previous Government, although, to be honest, even that will not be enough. We need co-ordinated and sustained work across government, and that is not easy.
Engineering biology is about growth. Make no mistake: it is as much a part of the Government’s growth agenda as anything else. I wish to convey to Members not on the committee, those reading this and—heaven knows—the few people watching our proceedings today the excitement of the new era being opened up by engineering biology. It is a fast-developing field of science. The applications are vast and diverse and could provide immense benefits to the UK from medicines and manufacturing to making new materials, more resilient crops and addressing climate change. We have a fantastic science base and real potential but, as the committee’s former chair just said, there is a real risk that we are falling behind because other countries are catching up. Urgent action is needed, or we run the risk of seeing science and technology developed here but exploited elsewhere.
Only last Thursday, we had a Question in the Chamber about the decarbonisation of transport. Of course, one of the thrilling things about engineering biology is that, in the future, it may be possible to use molecules to, in effect, grow sustainable aviation fuel. That is just one of the ways in which engineering biology can have a huge effect on the future. It is always the same with new technology; the same is true of this House’s current interest in space. We need to identify areas of engineering biology at which the UK excels and which it is well placed to exploit, because, sadly, we cannot do everything.
I hope that the Minister will use this debate to reassure the committee that engineering biology will feature strongly in the industrial White Paper when it is published. I hope that he will be able to say more about the Regulatory Innovation Office—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, will also speak about that—because we are well placed to play a leading role in setting standards internationally. Of course, a crucial challenge is where to go for scale-up funding, and initiatives such as the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank may help, but there is still a lack of significant funding.
In the short time I have available, I would like to convey some of the views of organisations outside this House. With a report that includes engineering and biology in the title, I went to both the organisations responsible for those subject disciplines. The Royal Society of Biology welcomed the report, saying “the use of bioengineering in plants can unlock multiple benefits in this sector by enhancing disease resistance and increasing productivity and nutritional content, provided that this is proportionate, scientifically justified and consistent and the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action as a result of precaution are considered”. That is quite carefully phrased but, nevertheless, it recognises its importance. I hope the Minister can reassure the scientific community that in taking this area forward, there will be consultation with all the relevant scientific bodies.
When I got in touch with the Royal Academy of Engineering, it was more explicit on the issues that it wanted to raise. “Now is the time”, it said, “to ensure the longevity of engineering biology and build on its success to accelerate translation, demonstrate commercial scale and secure the value from such activities in the UK”. I could not put it better myself.
My time is almost up, but I want to make a final point. First, I endorse everything that the former chair said about the visa policy. It is all the more important when you consider what is going now on in the United States. Last week, Sir John Bell told our committee that he had people on the phone all the time saying, “When can we come and work in the UK?” This adds urgency to everything that we do. Whether or not you like the rhyming title of our report, the fact is that this is an opportunity that we must not miss, and I, for one, hope that we do not.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and all the members of the committee on an excellent report. I very much agree with its key theme of the scale-up challenge, which is one of the big obstacles to turning our great science and innovation into substantial, successful companies. I declare my interests as co-chair of SynBioVen, which invests in a set of synthetic biology companies, and as the newly appointed chair of the Regulatory Innovation Office. I will briefly explain the perspective of the Regulatory Innovation Office on this report, especially focusing on paragraphs 106 to 135, which touch on regulation.
Our job as the Regulatory Innovation Office, reporting to the Minister—who I see in front of me—is to try to ensure that the regulatory regime promotes innovation in new technologies and does not act as a barrier to their use, to try to come up with granular and practical advice, to think not just about regulations but, often, standard setting, which can be even more important in the early stages of a technology—one of the advantages of being so good at science and tech is that we should have a place at global standard-setting meetings—and to be very aware of the importance of public understanding, public engagement and attitudes to risk. The committee had some specific proposals on the regulatory regime, and I will touch briefly on three of them.
First, in paragraph 107 there is a discussion of what one can call only the obscurity and secrecy surrounding the Engineering Biology Regulators Network. There is a moment in the report where Angela McLean, the Chief Scientific Adviser, says that she does not know who is a member of this august network. In the past few months, led by the Minister for Science, that has all changed. We now have public information, which should of course be available, about the members of the Engineering Biology Regulators Network. That is not just a list of names, but a proper account of the 12 key regulators involved and a brief account of what each does in this area, with an email address and a contact address for each one. A start has been made to make the Engineering Biology Regulators Network more publicly accessible, although there is more to do. We do not yet have the coherent taxonomy of what all the different regulatory bodies do that the committee called for, but now that we have this group and it is functioning and publicly known, we can use it as a core network to spread understanding of the different roles of the regulators. There is more to do, but we are making good progress.
Secondly, in that part of the report there was a discussion of the sandbox model for finding exactly how a new technology could be implemented and how the different regulators could impact its development. One regulatory sandbox has now been launched, involving the Food Standards Agency. A sandbox is not a one-day session in a committee trying things out; this is a two-year programme costing £1.6 million focusing on the development of cell-cultured food, particularly meat. This is a real expert exercise engaging with the British start-ups active in this space, finding out exactly what regulatory issues they will face and tackling them as part of the sandbox process. We do not want sandbox reports after which nothing happens. RIO will be involved in this throughout, and there will shortly be an open call for the creation of a second sandbox in engineering biology, and we will see what applications there are. I very much look forward to supporting that.
Thirdly, there is a discussion in the report of regulatory capacity. In the few weeks I have been doing this job, I have already heard almost every regulator say to me, “Of course we would love to do more to promote new technologies, but we are understaffed and under-resourced. If only we had more money, we would be able to do it. Could you help us get more money, please?” We have to be very careful. It is not the job of RIO to go around with an open chequebook writing lots of cheques. We do not have the resource for that, and those are decisions for Ministers.
But there clearly have been specific occasions when we just needed to help build up capability. The Food Standards Agency, which is particularly covered in the report and has matching responsibilities to the EU post Brexit but with 1/10th of the capability, has recently been awarded £1.4 million from the regulatory innovation fund as a one-off payment to boost its capacity in some innovative technologies. So, I assure the committee that, from the specific perspective of the Regulatory Innovation Office, this excellent report is being taken into account and is already influencing the delivery of government policy.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the committee report. It is a case study in how it is not enough to lead in an area of technology—that is easily lost without a joined-up strategy and harnessing the role of procurement. This is elaborated in chapter 2, with quotes from Dame Angela McLean that
“a purchase is worth 10 times a grant”,
and from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, that it is easier to sell products to overseas Governments than to the UK Government because of UK procurement rules. It is still very hard for smaller companies to be considered at procurement stage, despite the new rules. The system, including the resource demands, remains against them.
Worse than that are the extensive pre-procurement phases of innovation grants. Designed to draw in innovative companies, they then have the lifeblood sucked out of their intellectual property, removing their competitive edge for any procurement stage or commercial exploitation, forced to hand it to competitors or incumbents. I drew this to the attention of the House in the science and technology and economy debate on 31 October 2024, and I have to tell the Minister that, despite his endeavours, if anything, it has got worse.
The point and principle at issue is that many, if not most, pre-procurement phase terms of reference and/or contracts and full procurement contracts require the purchaser—that is the government department, quango, commercial catapult or Innovate sponsor—to be granted a free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable licence, with full sublicensing rights to anybody, to the intellectual property, including any necessary background technology. This is then made available to others at the procurement stage or later renewal of contracts.
Anyone who knows anything about intellectual property will understand this undermines the innovative company’s position, not just in later tendering to government but for wider commercial exploitation. Competitors have free licences without having invested in research, and it undermines the ability to attract investors and scale business. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys is very concerned about this issue and has set up a committee to gather evidence. As the key relevant professional body, I suggest the committee looks to CIPA for expert evidence going forward.
Meanwhile, let me give a couple of examples. Recently, a department wrote a threatening letter to a growth company that had submitted a procurement bid in which it referenced its existing patents to illustrate its state of development. Among other things, the letter stated that, by having patents, it was behaving anti-competitively and demanded that the patents be surrendered—note the belief that patents are anti-competitive, despite all the rhetoric we have about innovation, growth and export. Even among key officials at the Cabinet Office, IP is not fully understood.
Another SME had signed up for an Innovate grant in collaboration with a catapult. During later due diligence for a large-scale licensing deal with a multinational company, it discovered problematic IP terms. These terms created a serious impediment to the deal being completed and favoured Innovate and the catapult. It took persistent follow-ups with the senior management of Innovate UK and the catapult organisation before they agreed, in writing, to remove the IP obligations. That SME was lucky. More stories, many around the MRC, end in refusal to change terms—but that bar should not be there in the first place.
It also highlights how young, unadvised companies do not see the danger, especially when hidden behind headline statements offering the grant declaring that you keep your own IP. Undermined IP has no value, even though you keep it. These clauses are also generic, whereas in law what is right for commissioned copyright is wrong for patentable inventions.
Technology cannot scale without intellectual property. Investors will not invest unless you can demonstrate competitive advantages, and our government-sponsored system of IP destruction must change dramatically to get growth, scale-up and value out of grants and the line of sight mentioned in paragraph 106 just referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I greatly appreciated taking part in this Science and Technology Select Committee investigation into engineering biology and extend my thanks to my noble friend Lady Brown for such excellent chairing of this report. The committee heard from many witnesses across industry and academia, and a number of clear themes emerged. I am going to focus my comments on one area that is close to my experience and expertise, and that is barriers from lack of opportunities for skills training.
Three areas of concern were raised by the witnesses. First, there is the training of the next generation of academics to lead the science. One of the problems with engineering biology is that, as a subject, it does not fit neatly within any undergraduate programme. Rather, it requires its researchers to have a knowledge of biology, biochemistry, chemistry, engineering, medicine, computer sciences and even earth sciences. As a result, we are relying almost entirely on PhD and master’s programmes to bring together those skills to then be able to apply them. Herein lies the problem.
There is currently really poor provision for engineering biology doctoral training programmes compared to other strategically important topics. In 2024, only two new doctoral training programmes were announced in engineering biology compared to 13 in AI. The situation is even worse than this because, if you drill down, as I did yesterday evening, the number of places advertised at Oxford on the engineering biology DTP for next year was six, while the number for AI—I am sorry, but the noble Lord next to me is probably leading one of them—is 38. We can immediately see what the issue is here. Essentially, we need greater provision for PhD places. Will the Minister tell us whether there are plans greatly to expand the training offers at doctoral level beyond that that has already been promised?
We also recommended that the Government should explore dedicated master’s courses in engineering biology. The Government’s response to our report said that they would explore options around this. Will the Minister say whether any progress has been made here?
The second issue we heard about from our witnesses was the urgent need for skills training opportunities for technicians in engineering biology. From the evidence we received, it is very unclear where training opportunities sit for technicians at present. If the industry expands, as we hope it will, this problem will only get worse. One route is via apprenticeships, and we heard a great anecdote from Professor Susan Rosser from the University of Edinburgh about how useful an apprenticeship can be for the university in its spin-out but also for the career development of the person involved. In essence, this individual came from working in a fast-food outlet—I think it was Kentucky Fried Chicken—to become a highly skilled automation biologist running and fixing robots and a huge bonus to their foundry as well. Key to creating more apprenticeships will be the role of Skills England, which we understand is still being set up. Can the Minister tell us what interactions DSIT has with Skills England to ensure that it is able to provide the critical training very focused on engineering biology?
Finally, we heard from a number of witnesses about the lack of skills needed for understanding the importance of engineering biology across government departments. Engineering biology currently sits under DSIT, but its outputs are highly relevant and important to Defra, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the DHSC, the Department for Education and others. Funding via the Treasury also needs to be brought into this mix. There needs to be shared communication and ownership across these departments. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether there are plans to increase skills training relating to the potential of engineering biology for civil servants across these many departments, alongside the appointment of a national sector champion for engineering biology to co-ordinate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, raised?
In summing up, although I welcome the progress thus far, I would appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, could respond to some of the more specific points I have made, which I feel are holding us back from our full potential in this area at present.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for their careful, detailed work and informative introduction. I have two points to make, about the general approach and about risk. I am taking a different, rather more sceptical approach than we have heard from speakers thus far.
First, to start with a traditional metaphor—fitting for me as a carpenter’s daughter—if you only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail. I understand that the committee may not have considered this within the scope of its inquiry, but I note that it did not consider which problems and issues are appropriate for synthetic biology solutions, and which need different approaches. If we are to avoid silos and have joined-up, systematic government, we need government and Parliament to think about prioritisation, funding, and even rhetoric and policies, as well as about what problems and big crises our societies face and whether synthetic biology is the best way to tackle them. Human time, talents and money are all scarce resources. They need to be used well and not in dangerous directions or into dead ends.
I will revisit these issues with my fatal Motion on the gene-editing regulations next Tuesday but, to use an example to illustrate my point, ScienceAlert yesterday published an article titled:
“Scientists Engineer Bacteria to Make Soils and Crops ‘Glow’ Different Colours”.
It quoted an MIT researcher explaining that
“adding two different bacteria … could, in effect, make fields glow red when pollutants take hold and green when nutrients are high”
so that
“it might respond to metals or radiation or toxins in the soil, or nutrients in the soil”.
We are talking about messing with the genetic make-up of bacteria and letting them loose on the world to know whether a field is contaminated with heavy metals or whether you have applied too much fertiliser.
I posit that there are other approaches here. You could have land managed and cared for by a farmer or grower—informed by government-funded, expert agro-ecological research—who intimately understands every corner and is protected by a society that has adequate regulation to ensure she will not be pushed to spread sewage sludge contaminated with heavy metals on it or forced to use irrigation water loaded with pesticides and pharmaceuticals. We need to stop assuming that we can make a mess, destroy the immensely complex earth systems developed over 4 billion years, and just engineer something to fix it. That is solutionism, and operates only to magnify the damage and, for a while, allow it to continue.
There are problems—the need urgently to develop a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, for example—for which synthetic biology is the right emergency response, but rather than assuming we can always scramble to that point, we need to think about how we stop the crises emerging in the first place. Synthetic biology cannot help us there. Ultimately, we need, as the Oxford geographer Jamie Lorimer explains, to work our way towards a probiotic: a healthy society and planet.
The final six pages of the report talk about risks, focused particularly, and with good cause, on the danger of inappropriate technology and materials falling into ill-intentioned and ill-prepared hands. This is an important issue, and I am pleased to see the focus here, but there is no real focus on the general systemic risks of messing around with an immensely complex biological system, about which we are, to compare with the education of a child, around early to middle primary in our understanding. We have just about mastered basic mental arithmetic, while life is operating at the level of the most sophisticated maths professor. Synthetic biology is mucking with systems that we just do not understand.
To illustrate that, I draw on another piece of just-emerging knowledge; it is an absolutely fascinating, paradigm-shifting discovery. I reference a Nature article published on 8 April and entitled:
“Cells are swapping their mitochondria. What does this mean for our health?”
That mitochondria can swap around cells is an entirely new discovery. It is massive. Most—nearly all, probably—of our synthetic biology does not take into effect how gene editing of cellular material might interact with that.
I have one final, extra thought here; it is an example of how we have inherited from the 20th century lots of ideas that we need to unlearn. Francis Crick’s central dogma was grounded in Crick’s reductionist belief in the possibility of explaining biological entities in terms of their physical and chemical components. He was absolutely wrong. Ultimately, I would urge, at the base, consideration of the phrase “engineering biology”. You can engineer machines, but life’s living organisms and ecosystems are nothing like machines. We need to acknowledge and examine carefully the long-running category error that we inherited from the 20th century.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her superb chairing of the committee and this inquiry. I also pay tribute to our wonderful staff, without whom, I have to say, I would have found it very difficult to write this speech.
I ought to declare my interests. I chair both the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Whittington Health NHS Trust. I am also a non-scientist member of the Science and Technology Committee, but I have a passionate belief in the need for the public at large to be engaged in the exciting—and enormously valuable to the UK—advances in scientific research, where this area of engineering biology plays such a strong role and where the UK has been a world leader for decades. However, we so often fail to tell the story.
We have done astonishingly well in the area of engineering biology, as well as in its predecessor disciplines of microbiology and biochemistry, but we are remarkably good at keeping quiet about it with the wider public. The committee was told that UKRI is funding some public engagement efforts and that DSIT has done a survey of the public’s knowledge and understanding of engineering biology, but that really is not enough. Public awareness is distressingly low. If the Government really foresee the bioeconomy taking off in consumer-facing sectors such as agriculture, we need to ask whether they are putting enough effort behind the regulators—the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised this—in terms of public engagement, resourcing such engagement and assessing their ability to communicate with the public about the implications of the products that they are creating.
The debate that took place on GMOs is an object lesson in how not to do it. We were and are remarkably successful in altering the DNA of plants and animals in ways to improve productivity or to resist disease. Our use of gene therapy, including using viruses as vectors for introducing genetic material into humans as a cure for diseases, is really exciting and life-saving, yet there is still a surprising amount of negativity. A quick Google search provides many examples of apparently reasoned objections. It seems that some sections of the public are far from convinced.
Although public perceptions of safety may be different from actual safety, we ignore those concerns at our peril. One big scandal could set research back significantly. For example, if there were the uncontrolled release into the environment of an organism that disrupted ecosystems—let alone a virus—or if there were a high-profile scientific scandal, public opinion could turn pretty quickly. We have not had that here yet, but they have had it in China, and it has had a damaging effect.
We need to think this through. We do not want ethical considerations blocking advances, but avoiding that requires keeping the public with us—explaining, educating and encouraging excitement and pride at what we can achieve. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics sensibly said that we have to be anticipatory here; that is missing. Of course, that is the exact opposite of what happened with the GMO debate. Indeed, we now hear that some of the hybrid plants that the UK is working on are easier to grow in the United States than here. This suggests greater public acceptance there—something that we could learn from—as well as an easier regulatory environment. We may or may not be sympathetic to that.
We are trying to negotiate a trade deal with the United States right now, so some of this matters. We have to get public perceptions and understanding in the UK up to speed. It is important for UK plc, as well as for our ability to cure and treat innumerable diseases, let alone many other benefits. What does the Minister plan to do in this area? We know that he wants limited priorities in a framework built around delivering four main outcomes, but we know nothing yet about how public engagement fits into all of that, which is a major component of the Government’s industrial strategy.
In our report, we argued that the Government should support public engagement for engineering biology and that regulators should explain the new technologies that they are regulating to the public and be resourced to do so. We said that UKRI should fund research into the public attitudes to engineering biology and, indeed, the ethical considerations as things come to market. The Government accepted our recommendations only in part. What is desperately lacking is a much broader public awareness and engagement campaign. Unless that happens, the ambitions for engineering biology will be hard to realise, public sympathy will be lacking, and we will risk more debate like that around GMOs, which has not gone away. The excitement and pride that we should have in our advances will be sorely lacking. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some comfort and tell us that public engagement is high on his list for regulators and government more widely.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too was pleased to have been a member of the committee that produced this report on an important issue that was so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. I declare my environmental and higher education interests, as listed in the register.
I shall touch on two issues that may not have been touched on by others. First, our report emphasised the need to scale up, and scale up fast, if we are not to lose our place in world markets. There has been a range of estimates of what size of scale-up is possible, but it is not clear from many of them on what basis that has been calculated. One could say that visionary—but perhaps on occasions rather wild—claims are made about engineering biology replacing, for example, all fossil fuel-based materials, which would be a massive transformation.
We have not yet seen enough examination of what it is that is being engineered. What are the feedstocks? It is clear that our ability to depend on feedstocks grown or produced in this country is to some extent limited, particularly for those feedstocks that rely on production on the land. The Government have just finished consulting on a land use framework for England, which was needed to ensure that wiser choices are made about competing land uses. Engineering biology would be another competing pressure for land on a huge scale, if some of the visionary ways forward were made reality. That is land that is finite on this small island. Of course, major growth in engineering biology could potentially take up the whole harvestable land surface, which will be in competition with food security, timber supplies, biodiversity, housing, the view—practically any other land use that you care to mention, and I name but a few.
Importing feedstocks on a substantial scale would also pose challenges. It could leave us subject to external shocks, as we have seen already in recent years. Alternative sources of feedstocks lie in the materials that we already use being repurposed as part of the circular economy. That may, for some engineering biology activities, be a fairly secure and valuable part of our use of materials at the moment, but we need to see the circular economy strategy so we can judge whether it takes into account the potential of engineering biology and takes it forward as part of the circular economy scene.
Since the Government have not yet commissioned an analysis of feedstocks and their sourcing, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether they will now do so, taking account of those three sources: homegrown, imported and circular economy-based feedstocks. Otherwise, if securing those feedstocks is not part of what they are trying to do, it simply looks as though the Government are not serious about upscaling. Can the Minister tell us when we will see the circular economy strategy? Will it deal with the feedstock issue?
If substantial land-based feedstocks are envisaged, Natural England should be included in the regulatory arrangements to ensure that land use and biodiversity impacts are not forgotten, as they were in the GMO debate, during which I was proud to be on the opposite side of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in his new regulatory role, is listening. Natural England is not currently a member of the Engineering Biology Regulators Network.
My last point, which I have 20 seconds to deal with, concerns the lack of a reliable process internationally for the screening of sequences of concern, and potential misuse of the technology. We have had guidance, but guidance is not enough. The Government said that they would consider putting screening on a statutory footing. What is the timescale of this consideration? What steps are we taking to develop international consensus on the need for screening for sequences of concern?
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I speak as the new chair of the Science and Technology Committee, and pay tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Brown, for her splendid leadership of the committee over the past three years. I congratulate her and the committee on producing this important report on engineering biology, and on her excellent introductory speech to this debate.
The report has the significant title: Don’t Fail to Scale: Seizing the Opportunity of Engineering Biology. It is on the more general topic of scaling up UK science and technology companies that I wish to briefly speak. As already mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, our committee has recently launched a new inquiry into financing and scaling UK science and technology. It is about that challenging pipeline, from the initial innovation, through the scale-up investment and culminating in the development of new industries in the UK that can so effectively benefit our economy and public services.
It has long been recognised that the UK struggles to translate a lot of its excellent research into the largest technology companies. This is now leading to a relative decline. In 2013, 118 UK companies were in the top 2,000 spenders on R&D globally. By 2023, that had declined to 63. China has more than quadrupled its share, while the US has maintained a leading position, with around a third of those companies. The UK has only two companies in the top 100, both pharmaceuticals. There is also a growing trend for the companies that do start up here looking overseas for investment, and increasingly being sold to buyers in the US. This is leading to what this House’s Communications and Digital Committee described as the UK becoming an “incubator economy”.
All this matters immensely for the UK. The Government are relying on economic growth to continue to fund public services, healthcare, measures to mitigate climate change, and, increasingly, defence. There can be no doubt about the potential for technology to enhance growth, tackling global and national problems, but if our science and technology companies continue to fail to scale—and engineering biology is a specific example of this—then the economic and social benefit from these technologies, and from the UK’s R&D spend, may well end up overseas.
It is clear that the majority of investment that UK science and technology companies will have to raise will come from the private sector, but this has been limited in recent years by the pull of the US market, which has a much deeper pool of available capital. It has also been limited by global trends, such as the rise of passive investment, which has led to fewer investors actively seeking out and investing in smaller UK science and technology companies.
The committee’s report recommended reforms in the very important pensions sector. These entail supporting consolidated pension funds to be less conservative and to invest in small, innovative UK tech companies, providing scale-up capital for them as part of their diversified portfolios. Australia, Canada and the Netherlands are examples of countries that have successfully implemented such practices. The Government are seeking to address this through the Mansion House reforms to encourage pension funds to combine and invest in UK science and tech companies, but one witness described this as a generational shift that could take a decade to implement fully. The reforms and their implementation need to be more ambitious and faster. Can the Minister set out how DSIT is engaged with this process of encouraging major pension fund investment in innovative UK tech companies?
Our inquiry into financing and scaling UK science and technology is just getting under way, but we have already heard a lot of important evidence. Our call for evidence is open until 9 May and sets out some of the areas we are interested in, including what we can learn from international comparisons. We are interested in how well current UK policies to support scaling up are working.
The problem of scaling is not new, but we are in a new context with a new Government, a shifting global order, changing priorities and a new technological landscape. The response from the Government to the engineering biology report left a lot to be announced in the forthcoming industrial strategy and after the spending review. There are some promising initiatives, but we are still waiting to see the overall strategic direction and whether the UK will seize the opportunities available or continue to fail to scale. We look forward to continuing our present inquiry and the Minister’s participation in it. Scaling our science and technology is a hugely important and pressing issue. We can all agree that we have to get it right.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, a long time ago I had the privilege of being responsible for an engineering company that made the London taxi, and I had 1,000 employees at the age of 31. Quite a few of those people were in our foundries business, making components for other companies in the days when electricity costs were so low that you could use electricity to melt alloys. Alas, all the foundries have shut down now, I am told.
Sometimes we had to plan a casting before the exact alloy had been specified, and the answer to the question, “What is this thing actually made of?”, was always unobtainium. This was a fictional alloy that never existed, and I was amused to discover that unobtainium was the valuable material in the science fiction film “Avatar” that could be mined only on that beautiful planet Pandora. There was another fictional alloy, unaffordium, but that was too expensive. The point of this story is that engineering biology can now truly create the biological equivalent of unobtainium. Rather than develop an organism and then find out what it does, we can specify what we want and develop the organism to do that. We will start with the need and end up with the answer to that need with a customer attached.
There are many stories, and some of them may even be true, of pharmaceutical developments whose markets proved to be different from those specified when the project was started—Viagra and penicillin spring to mind. Lots of basic research will get funding as it changes the question “I wonder what its properties are?” to “I wonder whether it actually does this?”
Engineering biology is one of the most interesting and exciting developments that I have ever heard of in engineering. This is an open goal for UK companies, which is why we wrote this report with the slightly cheap headline Don’t Fail to Scale. I feel that engineering biology will happen anyway, but it could happen earlier and with less risk if it has government support. Will it get full government support? Our regulators do not like new risks; that is in their nature. New risks mean new challenges, and possibly new things going wrong. This is not a party-political point; the identity of the Government does not matter, as all regulators behave similarly.
What is different between Governments is the urgency with which a problem is addressed. Let us compare this with the timing of a debate that took place three days ago. It was a two-hour debate on a report by the Economic Affairs Committee entitled National Debt: It’s Time for Tough Decisions, which was published last September. That is a really important subject, but our engineering biology report was published this January, and I am very pleased that it has such a level of importance that it is being debated in April.
I am pleased that the Government share my enthusiasm for this subject so palpably, but I would be hard put to justify why the delay has been halved while the urgency has doubled. If it means that the Government are indeed taking this subject seriously and urgently, then bravo to the Labour Party—at least in this respect. However, some recommendations have generated responses that are a straightforward fudge—for example, the recommendation in paragraph 57, which generated a response mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. The recommendation is that the Government should appoint an engineering biology champion to push forward some action. The response was:
“The government will work internally and with the sector to explore the feasibility of a national EB champion”.
Can the Minister say whether they will actually do this or merely explore the possibility of doing it? If so, when?
In summary, this report is excellent, if too long; it could have been even better if it were half the length. However, the timing of this debate is the best evidence that the Government are taking the subject seriously, and that is wonderful. I only wish that the Treasury was taking the Economic Affairs Committee’s report on national debt as seriously as this report has been taken—then we could actually afford to do what is recommended rather than only “deeply consider” the proposals.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on her excellent report. I would not say that it is too long; rather, it is very comprehensive. However, I was surprised that the only research institute mentioned in it was the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich. At another institute not too far away, there is another example of world-leading research: the ground-breaking work in synthetic biology at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge.
As we all know, all living things are built from proteins created from the same 20 amino acids. Work at the LMB has shown that, by reprogramming the genetic code, it is possible to incorporate non-natural amino acids into proteins, thereby enabling the creation of new classes of enzymes, drugs and biomaterials—for example, polymers that can be programmed to be biodegradable.
As has been pointed out several times in this debate, the UK was a world leader in synthetic biology 10 years ago, following major investment from UKRI since 2007. The report indicates that the UK’s position at the forefront of the field has slipped. One view is that the ratio of outputs to the level of funding for synthetic biology has been disappointing in the last decade compared to other areas of research excellence in the UK.
An alternative view, which is more my view, is that the field has expanded, and engineering biology, a description that started to be used only in the late 2010s—I hope not a Windscale-to-Sellafield moment—reflects the maturation of synthetic biology and its integration with other fields, such as machine learning and advanced manufacturing. As a result, the level of funding needed a substantial increase just to cope with the expansion of the field.
I believe that the rewards of a multidisciplinary approach to engineering biology will be great. To optimise the design of a new enzyme or protein, thousands of variants will need to be tested. Machine learning, which, as we all know, is a strength in the UK, can be used to predict which variants should be tried first, analyse experimental results in real time and suggest the next experiment, a process known as active learning. To reassure my noble friend on my right, a good proportion of the PhDs in the AI CDTs will be for the applications of machine learning, for example, developing active learning techniques for engineering biology.
As the report states, and my noble friend Lord Mair made the point very eloquently, engineering biology is an illustrative case study of wider issues across the UK economy. The Government’s willingness to set 10-year budgets for some R&D activities is welcome but should be accompanied by funding nimbleness. Excellence in generating valuable and novel outputs should indeed be rewarded with follow-on funding, but at the same time we should not be afraid to close down unproductive lines of inquiry. This balanced strategy happens much more readily in research institutes, which is why I mentioned them at the beginning.
Beyond academic research, the early stages of the translational pipeline are mostly working. The number of university spin-outs is growing year on year. Funding for series A and series B is generally available, but as a country we struggle with series C and beyond. This makes it very difficult for innovative British businesses to scale and remain in the UK.
Market access is a further issue in a global economy, and our US and Chinese competitors benefit from huge domestic markets. The creation of the National Wealth Fund and the launch of the British Growth Partnership are positive developments that will help UK companies to access the capital they need to scale, but it is fair to say that we are in a holding pattern as we await the publication of the final report of the pensions investment review, the unveiling of the industrial strategy and the outcome of the spending review, all in the next few weeks.
No doubt we will return, as has been promised by my noble friend Lord Mair, to the general issue of how to ensure that we do not fail to scale, if only in the debate on the recent report from the Communications and Digital Committee on the scaling up, this time, of AI and creative technologies. However, I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we hope that the path and means to scale up in the eight sectors of the Government’s industrial strategy will become clearer by the end of June.
Lord Drayson (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, was pleased to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee during this inquiry. I draw attention to my register of interests, particularly in my role as a science entrepreneur. My comments will focus on industrial strategy, given the emphasis that the Government placed on their forthcoming industrial strategy in their response to our report. In particular, I will focus on UK policy towards foreign ownership of key UK assets, an issue that has come into very sharp focus recently, given the dramatic shift in US government policy and the close relationship between the ownership and control of the major US technology companies and the Trump Administration.
Since the 1980s, the UK has pursued the most open policy in the world towards foreign ownership of sovereign assets. This policy, consistently followed by successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, has conflated foreign investment with loss of control. Ministers have long lauded foreign investors for buying UK assets, such as infrastructure, businesses and, most recently, university scientific research, as a vote of confidence in the UK and a boost to economic growth, when the reality is that once ownership is lost, management decisions are taken abroad, wealth creation accrues overseas and the critical mass of UK-owned and UK-run businesses declines.
Scant attention has been paid to the corrosive effect this policy has on UK wealth creation, our national culture and our confidence in ourselves and our future to the point at the start of this year where less than 5% of UK pensions were invested in UK equities, the UK stock exchange had fallen to 21st place, level with Kazakhstan in world IPO rankings, and the talk in founder-entrepreneur circles was about how quickly they could move their companies to the US to escape the aversion to risk and lack of scale-up capital that exists in the UK.
However, the revolution in US policy that is taking place under President Trump presents a once-in-a-generation chance for the UK to adapt a new industrial strategy that encourages UK science innovators to stay here and to build here, for UK investors to back those entrepreneurs and for these UK-owned and managed businesses to go out into the world and generate trade and wealth, filling the void left by “America first” trade policies and tariffs that are destroying long-established supply chains and straining international partnerships.
There is now a clear and urgent need for the UK to respond by implementing an industrial strategy that places UK sovereignty at its centre and enables UK ownership of key technologies and companies through policies that encourage UK finance in UK science, smart regulation that accepts risk and prioritises growth and government procurement that creates critical mass in the UK market to enable UK-owned and managed technology businesses to win.
For example, in AI, the enabling technology of the 21st century that will have a profound effect on all sectors, in particular engineering biology, right now the UK has no sovereign capability in large language models. If you are a Brit wishing to use AI, you have a choice between US, Chinese or French models. It is urgent for the Government to address this lacuna. When are we going to wake up and realise that if we want our British way of life, our values, our openness and our diversity to endure, we had better have ownership and control of the technologies that our society will depend on and the algorithms that our children will be shaped by?
Our scientists and entrepreneurs have the talent and the drive; they just need an active industrial strategy from their Government that encourages and enables UK ownership and starts to build a critical mass of world-class businesses in engineering biology and in other growth sectors. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the committee on tackling this important and scientifically very exciting topic. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, pointed out, it is a topic that still stands under the shadow of the GM debates of around 25 years ago, debates held up in the world of science communication as a model to avoid.
There has been a lot of research on what went wrong then as well as on public opinions on genetic engineering, and the research all points in a similar direction. People generally see the potential benefits of most forms of genetic engineering, and they want to encourage it, but there are key concerns, and if these are not listened to and, more importantly, taken into account and acted on people rightly feel aggrieved. That is what happened 25 years ago, and we must avoid those mistakes being made again.
Underlying everything is the issue of trust and trustworthiness. People are sensitive to the possible motivations of others. If they feel that someone is trying to persuade them, they quite sensibly do not trust them to be even-handed with the evidence or to be acting in the public’s interest, rather than, say, industry’s. This is where I fear that the language used in general around engineering biology, including by this Government, tends to sound weighted in favour of emphasising benefits without enough emphasis on how people’s concerns about different risks are being considered and acted on.
I will briefly go through the top concerns that have emerged from 25 years’ worth of work in this subject area, and give the Minister the opportunity to make it clear how the Government are mitigating each. One concern is the risk to human health. Most people trust the FSA or the healthcare regulators on that, at least on the short-term risks. That wrongly became the main focus of the GM debates in the past, without enough attention paid to the other concerns, such as—and perhaps the Minister can discuss this—a lack of transparency about who is driving the area forward and how decisions will be made and by whom, with a particular concern about the test for public benefit.
There is a perception that financial gain will speak louder than public benefit and that scientists are not always best placed to put brakes on their own research. They might get carried away with the excitement of what is possible over what is really necessary or desirable. Who will apply a public benefit test to potential applications and how? How will that be made transparent?
In a related way, in the previous GM debates, a lot of the sentiment translated as against the technology or its use was actually concerned about the motivations and priorities of multinational businesses, the risk of inequity of benefits and the industrialisation of farming. How are the Government planning to mitigate against the same problem again by being upfront about identifying possible winners and losers?
I turn to the lack of information given to the public and consumers about the techniques and technologies involved, and the labelling of products. Labelling is absolutely crucial and comes up in every survey and study. People feel that they need to be empowered to choose. How do the Government propose to achieve this level of public knowledge and choice?
Concerns are always expressed about environmental consequences, and not just the potential effects on human health. There are huge possible outcomes here, if things such as gene drives are introduced into wild populations. Which bodies will be carrying out environmental risk assessments for engineering biology applications and how will an acceptable level of risk be determined? The Government’s current response to this report seems to focus only on the food and farming applications of the technologies.
Finally, there is the concern over the ethical and moral boundaries to synthetic or engineering biology. We must never forget that these are living things that we are bringing into existence to fulfil a function for our benefit. There is a lot of work on ethics in synthetic biology, and even work on public perceptions of the issues. The question is: how will this work be incorporated into the planning and regulation of engineering biology? Here I disagree slightly with the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, in that I believe that, sometimes, morals and ethics should stop progress in a particular direction.
There is an overall concern that the benefits might be felt before some of these risks manifest and that, by then, it will be too late to do much about them. Having a well-developed structure in place early to consider and deal with these issues is vital. “Pro-innovation regulation” is not a reassuring phrase on that front.
To conclude, all the fairly extensive research suggests that each application of engineering biology—medical, farming, fuel and so on—needs to be considered independently. However, most applications have public support, provided—importantly—that it is tightly regulated, that all the aspects that I have mentioned are considered and assessed, and the outcomes are monitored. Can the Minister put on record how each of these concerns is being dealt with, remembering that no one wants to be persuaded? They want to hear the truth and be reassured that the Government will listen to and act on their concerns.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, at the weekend I was reading a history of Dartmoor prison, which I live quite close to. In the last century, the prisoners were allocated candles to read by, but in fact they were so hungry that they had to eat them. We have not yet been allocated candles in this Room, but we could probably do with them to see by.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the rest of the committee on this report. I am a bit of an ignoramus—I am just a civil engineer—so I listened with great interest to the witnesses, my colleagues on the committee and our special advisers. Like other noble Lords, I have learned a great deal.
I will concentrate on something I have been following for years: the fact that we need more scientists, as everyone has said. It is good that we got the Minister’s helpful responses so quickly. Some members of the committee gave those responses marks out of 10 based on whether they were helpful or not. That was probably very unfair on him, but he got very high marks most of the time—except for the immigration issue, which I assume came from the Home Office. In a subsequent letter to the Home Office, we described the UK visa policy towards scientists as
“an act of national self-harm”.
That is pretty strong for a letter from a committee, but it was justified. I hope that he does not take it personally, because it is not his fault—but let us hope that one or two others do.
I have been looking at how to get more scientists here. This is impossible to separate from our general problem with immigration, which gets very nasty in the press sometimes, and what we can do about it. Last week I came across a report, which my noble friend Lord Dubs gave me, from a marine pilot who has come up with a solution to the immigration problem across the channel. Many colleagues think that, if we stop immigration across the channel, all the problems will be solved—that is a load of rubbish. They will not be solved; they will be mitigated.
This eminent marine pilot came up with the solution that what is missing is a legal basis to take immigrants and their handlers to court if they come, and that we should reorganise search and rescue, the coastguard and everything else under one body so that they work together rather than separately. It is very simple, but it needs doing. He said:
“Prosecutions under existing laws, such as the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, are non-existent”.
If there are no prosecutions, nobody will be found guilty. I saw this paper only last week, so I shall send it to my noble friend the Minister. I suggest that he might like to pass it on to the Home Office and the Department for Transport. It is not his problem—he has said that he wants more scientists, and I believe him—but we have to find a way of getting them here; if we do not, we will be in serious trouble.
The question will come: who will pay for this? That retired captain has come up with a very sensible solution: it will be funded by the harbour dues payable by all the ships that go into harbours. I got involved in that about 10 or 20 years ago, in your Lordships’ House, when we found that ships going into British harbours were funding the maintenance of Irish lighthouses, which did not seem a good thing after 100 years of Ireland’s independence. That is one way of doing it—and it can be done without any government expenditure—so I shall pass it to my noble friend Minister. I congratulate all noble Lords on some really interesting speeches.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, as the final speaker before the gap, I wholeheartedly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and the committee on their excellent report. I also put on record my thanks to Jenny Haigh and Dilys Williams from the University of the Arts London for their helpful briefing for today’s debate.
For reasons of brevity, I will focus on chapter 5 of the report, “Engineering Biology for Growth”, particularly the sections “Scaling Up Companies” and “Incentives and Mandates to Create a Market”. These sections shape my suggestions for the fashion and textiles industry—the focus of my speech.
The report warns that UK innovations risk being “exploited overseas” rather than scaled domestically, a particular concern for the fashions and textiles sector. The committee observes that:
“Without significant incentives or mandates to act as a ‘pull factor’ … companies are unlikely to move away from current practice”.
This speaks directly to the fashion industry’s reluctance to shift away from synthetic materials, with more than two-thirds of our clothing currently made from petroleum-derived fabrics, primarily polyester.
The stakes are significant. The UK fashion sector contributes £62 billion to our economy and supports 1.2 million jobs. Yet this vital industry’s environmental footprint is unsustainable, with clothing responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than shipping and aviation combined. The need for sustainable alternatives is therefore urgent.
Engineering biology offers such alternatives. The committee highlights Colorifix, whose biological dyeing process cuts chemical pollution by 80% and saves vast quantities of water through fewer rinses. Recognised as a 2023 Earthshot Prize nominee, it aims to scale its process to 15% of the world’s clothes by 2030. Other innovators include Fibe, which is developing fibres from potato waste, Arda Biomaterials, which is turning spent grain into leather-like materials, and Oxford Biopigments which is creating plant-based dyes.
However, as the committee notes, these technologies face scaling challenges. To address these barriers, we could focus on three areas: first, bridging the “valley of death” between research and commercialisation with dedicated financial support for fashion applications; secondly, implementing a co-ordinated regulatory approach with sandboxes, as discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and my noble friend Lady Freeman, for testing novel biomaterials, and streamlined approval processes; and, thirdly, securing our talent pipeline through expanded training programmes. As noted by the Centre for Sustainable Fashion, the need for technical skills will start taking on new forms as it welcomes exchanges with traditional skill sets. We must therefore create programmes that connect creative and scientific fields, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, educating a new generation of designers who understand both aesthetics and biology.
I would be remiss not to acknowledge that individual innovations alone cannot transform the sector. The recommendations from the 2019 Fixing Fashion: Clothing Consumption and Sustainablity report remain relevant, such as tracing new raw materials to tackle supply chain abuses, reforming taxation to reward sustainable design, banning the incineration of usable stocks and shifting incentives towards reuse and repair.
Small UK businesses display remarkable sustainability innovation yet face significant competition from larger players. They need targeted financial support and capacity building to help level the playing field. The EU leads in regulating fashion sustainability, so if we fail to act, the UK risks losing both competitiveness and this vital industry. By implementing the committee’s recommendations, we can position the UK as a global leader in sustainable textiles, creating economic opportunity while addressing climate imperatives.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap and even more grateful for the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, in what was a most fascinating report to be part of, and for our excellent staff.
If we want to move away from fossil feedstocks for products such as fuel, chemicals and packaging, we need a long-term plan from this Government. We need a road map so we can see what is going to happen when and industry can plan its development to coincide with that.
As part of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, we need to know where our feedstocks are. We are looking at a world where concentrated carbon is going to be short, and in the ordinary course of events we need to take decisions which will make those feedstocks available. Things such as sewage, farm wastes and plastic, which at the moment we try to throw away in one way or another, we are going to need as our basic feedstocks. When we are building our infrastructure to handle those things, we need to recognise that, because it takes a good long while to build that infrastructure, and if we focus on “Let us burn it all, throw it away or spread it on the fields”, we are not going to have the infrastructure to make it available.
Another potential carbon waste stream is forestry. Most of our lowland British forests are in a sad state of decay, because the markets for their products have gone. If the Government want that to be available as a source of carbon, they need to start enabling industries to grow now. There is no easy solution to this. We cannot just say, “Oh, we will use some land”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, because we want that for other purposes—thank you very much. We need to be innovative in how we use the carbon that we have.
In recognising the shortage of carbon, we should recognise that we will probably need more carbon than we have. We will try to build industries in areas of carbon shortage, so the efforts of my noble friend Lord Willetts in setting standards will become extremely important, because that is the basis for enabling our businesses to flourish overseas.
Finally, I join those who said that we should sort out pensions. Some 40 years ago, I managed pension funds. We invested the majority of our funds in UK businesses, including—I am glad to say—that of my noble friend; now, it is down to 5%, as the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, said. We have done that as politicians in the pursuit of safety; without a thought for consequences or about how this works, we have merely generated a certainty of poverty. We need a Government—ideally this one, but, if not, a subsequent one—to take courage and make a radical change to where our money and pensions are used to support our country.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for steering our Select Committee so thoughtfully through this inquiry and for her introduction to this debate. I wonder whether the power outage in Spain and Portugal has extended to the Moses Room, but I can at least just about see what I have written in front me.
I, too, pay tribute to our excellent staff. Our brilliant policy analyst, Thomas Hornigold, who is present here today, seems to relish each new challenge that we give him. He not only becomes an expert on the subject; he is able to simplify it for those of us who are not experts and spot the key elements that we need to consider. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I, too, thank our impressive witnesses.
This is a case study of one area where the UK has been at the forefront in the past but where we seem to be missing the opportunity to scale up. This inquiry has led to our current, wider inquiry on what the UK must do if it is to scale up from innovation—particularly in our universities—to SMEs and, crucially, to large-scale businesses here in the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, we know that this has long been a concern, but it is always worth looking at how, in current circumstances, this can best be addressed. We have had some successes in the past: we fostered the pharmaceutical industry and we kept the automotive industry in earlier years. We have also faced different economic and global challenges, which means we must always analyse how best to steer through whatever our current challenges or opportunities might be.
The global position we now find ourselves in—suddenly needing to be far more resilient than we were before, as our major ally veers off course—means that this is even more important. It also presents a vital opportunity. Right now, US academia—which has, in the past, been so strong, so well-funded, so closely linked to venture capital and so well able to get ideas scaled up—is under bizarre threat from the new President. It is extraordinary to see Harvard needing to fight back against government overreach, and chilling to see the threats from the US Government that its research funding will be cut if it does not fall into line.
We must be at the forefront of attracting talent here. Can the noble Lord tell me if there is a cogent plan for this? I do not simply want to hear a list of what we already have. We know that this is totally inadequate for this, with our visa rules, health charges, salary requirements and so on. This is a time to welcome young scientists and technicians who see the US Government as a block in their path for at least the next few years—possibly a decade or more. The US in the past has benefited hugely from the inflow of such talent; we need to do the same.
Will we see the Home Office, even under such a sentient Minister as Yvette Cooper, pushing back now, simply to keep immigration numbers down? This would be the act of national self-harm to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. I hope that the Minister is engaging persuasively with the Home Office over the upcoming immigration White Paper.
We have here a leading-edge new technology with potentially wide application, one that the Government said that they prioritised, saying that it has huge growth potential for the UK. The noble Baronesses, Lady Willis and Lady Neuberger, the noble Lords, Lord Tarassenko, Lord Freyberg and Lord Lucas, and others all made this very clear. To semi-quote the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, maybe this one is an “obtainium”. The UK has historically had strengths in this area.
However, we also heard that the rest of the world is catching up and indeed overtaking us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, noted, even the Minister identified to us that the window of opportunity is small and closing. It needs investment. We received a report today from Perspective Economics that underlines what we found. It identifies that the UK is
“at risk of losing out to better-resourced international markets”.
It finds that there is already a trend of innovative British firms moving their manufacturing operations to countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Portugal, where scale-up infrastructure and support are, it reports, more accessible.
The response the Government gave to our report has many instances of “wait and see”—in particular, wait for the industrial strategy. It is very welcome that the Government are about to publish an industrial strategy. It is astonishing to me that the previous Government so often prided themselves on not having such a strategy. We had one in the coalition, out of which the catapults came, for example, and investment in the Crick Institute and in areas where the UK had an advantage, even though the then Chancellor defined this as a period of austerity after the 2008 financial crash.
Some subsequent Conservative Business Secretaries, such as Greg Clark, did develop an industrial strategy—but most of his colleagues refused to do this. However, it is not so much about picking winners but trying to work out where the strengths and weaknesses of our economy are today, where we potentially have advantages, and how to move those areas forward, making plans and working out where we should best focus resources. It is also of course about addressing risks and benefits, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Neuberger, Lady Young and Lady Freeman, have mentioned.
When will this new industrial strategy be launched? We must hope that it is not all things to everyone. I heard one Minister last week apparently describing certain aspects of it—which I must say made my heart sink—like an election manifesto, with something for everybody. Yet in that same speech, there was absolutely no mention of visas for talented people to come here. Above all, where does the critical scale-up funding come from? Innovate UK can provide some early-stage, small-scale funding, as we saw, but this does not address the need for substantial long-term funding, which has been a feature of the United States, for example.
We noted that the decline in the UK’s capital markets does not help. We concluded that financial reforms, to which noble Lords have referred, including those announced in the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which aim to address the limited availability of scale-up funding in the UK, should be rapidly progressed, lest we see even more of an exodus of capital. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, pointed to the limits, though, even here. Clearly, there might be slightly less of that exodus, as Trump takes a scythe to the global economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, pointed out, this could also be a key opportunity.
I recall that we established the Green Investment Bank in the coalition days, only for it to be sold off later. What kind of strategic thinking was that? Then the wheel is reinvented. We concluded in our report that the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank ought to be helpful here, but that their mandates would need to be expanded, they would need specialist investors and they would need to move at speed and to take risks.
There are, of course, immediate political attacks when something seems not to be working. What should we collectively make of this? Just as reform in the health service is so often resisted, risks need to be taken here, and projects given time to develop—and some will not succeed.
We also felt that much more could be done through public procurement, a point clearly made by Angela McLean, which has been referred to this afternoon. We hope the Government will seriously address this.
Regulation was another area that came up in our study. I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in terms of speeding up regulation and what he has laid out today. However, I am, in turn, shocked by what my noble friend Lady Bowles said about IP. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the Minister, can take that away and act on it.
In conclusion, bioengineering has such potential. We need to move fast and effectively if the UK is to benefit from it, but there are clearly huge challenges. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response to both our report and this debate.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating and thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the other members of the committee, for a report that is not just fascinating and important but clearly urgent, and whose urgencies have been underlined by some fascinating speeches this afternoon. I fear that engineering biology is a subject that does not receive the public attention it deserves, so I am delighted that today we can go some small way towards rectifying that.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I begin by pointing to some of the foundations laid by the previous Government. In 2023, the science and technology framework identified engineering biology as one of the five critical technologies vital to the United Kingdom’s prosperity and resilience. That commitment was deepened through the National Vision for Engineering Biology, published in December 2023, which pledged £2 billion over 10 years to develop the sector. The then Government moved to establish an Engineering Biology Steering Group, set up a £5 million sandbox fund to accelerate regulatory reform for innovative biology-derived products, and, following the pro-innovation review led by Professor Dame Angela McLean, created the Engineering Biology Regulators Network to make the UK’s regulatory landscape clearer, faster and more innovation friendly.
Importantly, the previous Government recognised that we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with a combination of emerging technology and science, comparative advantage and regulatory freedom. The ambition was clear: by 2030, the UK would have a system of regulation and standards that would be pro-innovation, easy to navigate and internationally competitive. Regulators would have a mandate to support innovation, with reduced testing costs to allow UK innovators to compete globally. We would move faster than international competitors in setting technical rules for critical technologies, strengthening the UK’s position as a global standard setter. That vision was and remains crucial if we are serious about leadership in sectors such as engineering biology.
In this excellent report, Don’t Fail to Scale, the message is equally clear. The UK retains outstanding research capability and a dynamic ecosystem of innovative companies. However, the committee rightly warns that, without consistent investment and strategic leadership, there is a real risk that these companies will scale up elsewhere and that the economic and strategic benefits will be lost to other economies. Many noble Lords spoke powerfully about this risk.
The committee makes a number of important and valuable recommendations. It calls for an industrial strategy that clearly places engineering biology at its heart, with a focused plan for scaling innovations domestically. It recommends the appointment of a national sector champion, a high-profile leader from industry or academia who can convene across government and drive delivery. It highlights the need for significantly increased investment in skills, including further doctoral training centres, as well as stronger use of public procurement to support emerging UK companies and technologies. Critically, it emphasises that the UK’s regulatory environment must continue to move quickly, with clear, innovation-friendly pathways that reduce time and cost to market for new products.
One test of the Government’s seriousness about engineering biology will be whether they reaffirm the full £2 billion funding commitment set out in the National Vision for Engineering Biology. The previous Government made that commitment because they recognised that this is not just a peripheral opportunity but central to the future of our food systems, health technologies, fuels and materials industries. It is an area where the UK continues to have a genuine comparative advantage—for now. As the report makes clear, it will retain that advantage only if engineering biology in the UK is backed by sustained investment and clear strategic intent.
On that basis, I close by asking the Minister to confirm three things, if possible: first, that the £2 billion commitment will be maintained in full; secondly, that the forthcoming industrial strategy will reflect engineering biology as a national priority; and thirdly, that they will ensure that regulatory reform—so crucial to first-mover advantage—remains a live and urgent priority. It was very good to hear from my noble friend Lord Willetts on that topic earlier. The opportunities in engineering biology are extraordinary. They are matched by the strength of the foundations already laid by our scientists, our entrepreneurs and the strategic choices made in recent years. What is now needed is the consistent and purposeful delivery of what we know is necessary.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, I start with three disadvantages: I cannot read in the dark; I am a doctor, so I cannot read my own handwriting; and I have had quoted back to me in various guises many of the things I have written over the past seven years, so I had better make sure that some of them happen.
I thank noble Lords for raising a number of important and extremely well-informed points today. Thanks must go to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for leading this inquiry and report and for starting us off with her insightful contribution and a few questions that I will answer as I go through. Several noble Lords have said in different ways that we cannot afford not to do this. That is a key and correct point. I thank all the members of the Science and Technology Committee for bringing Don’t Fail to Scale into the world. I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, that reports are indeed useful. This is useful; it is exactly what we need at a time when we are thinking about allocation in a spending review.
The comparison made in the report—that, just as AI is rewriting the “software” of our world, engineering biology is rewriting the “hardware”—is a useful one but, of course, the ability to redesign the software code of life is one of the key advances that has unlocked the ability to engineer biology. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger, Lady Bennett and Lady Freeman, said, in order to do that, we must proceed appropriately and with public acceptance.
The 1,000 or so engineering biology companies that we have in the UK are showing how we can harness this power. They are perfecting the alternative proteins that will strengthen our food supply and help us reach net zero. They are converting factory waste into low-carbon fuel for cars, planes and even RAF unmanned aircraft, as C3 Biotech is doing in Manchester. They are designing lab-grown red blood cells that have been genetically manipulated to treat disorders steadily for 120 days at a time, rather than using a daily dose of pills. They are engineering cells to last for years by replacing missing proteins to correct genetic deficiencies in what, to all intents and purposes, look like cures—something that has not been possible with medicines in the past.
The UK remains a global leader in engineering biology. We rank fourth in the world for the impact of our research in the sector. Last year, UK biotech—it is perhaps a proxy for some parts of engineering biology—raised £3.7 billion, more than double the year before. The news that Professor Jason Chin—who, if anyone, will be the person to make the engineering equivalent of unobtainium—will head up a team of 300 world-class researchers at Oxford’s Generative Biology Institute is a vote of confidence in the UK’s prominence in this area.
However, if we are to hold on to this position, we must act—and urgently. We have heard many good points from across the Committee on why and how we should do this. I will respond to as many of them as I can—if I do not respond to any points, I will follow up afterwards—but let me first make a few points on how the Government are helping engineering biology companies to scale in the UK. We need to give the sector the strategic focus that it deserves and needs. I cannot say much about the outcomes of the industrial strategy or the spending review; however, in line with the timelines set by the Treasury, we will set out those plans, and noble Lords can expect to see the industrial strategy shortly.
What I can say is that this is the first time that a sector—the digital and technologies sector—will have its own dedicated, 10-year plan. This plan offers significant opportunities for growth across UK science and technology and will include engineering biology specifically; I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, that there is a specific section and clear focus on engineering biology. The Secretary of State highlighted the critical role of engineering biology as a key technology for future growth in his speech at techUK on 10 March; this is important because techUK is often thought of an organisation for digital tech only, but it is not.
Supporting the engineering biology sector means having the right funding, regulatory framework, infrastructure, government procurement and skills. I will set out what we are doing on some of those. Before I do so, I should add that we have an engineering biology advisory board, with experts from academia and industry, which, just last month, actively discussed the role of a national champion, including what that might look like and how it could lead to coherence across the sector; indeed, it invited people from other sectors that have had national champions to discuss what that might turn into.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that there is join-up across government here. Part of the role of DSIT is a horizontal one across government. It is not a purely vertical department; as a horizontal department, it has to make sure that these things are joined up. One of those areas of join-up occurs around biomass strategy, on which there is an active piece of work going on at the moment; that is particularly for engineering biology and is linked to the Circular Economy Taskforce. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are reassured that that is being looked at.
Last year, UKRI announced £100 million of funding for six engineering biology hubs across the country and 22 awards for two-year R&D projects. These hubs are working on priority applications from developing vaccines to preventing plastic pollution. ARIA has also announced more than £60 million of funding to develop the next generation of synthetic crops, which aim to remove CO2, improve food security and deliver medicines. New research programmes from ARIA are looking at engineering biology from pandemic preparedness right the way through to ocean biomanufacturing.
Short-termism, which has been raised by many speakers, has long held back R&D in sectors such as these where projects are likely to take many years to go live, let alone see outcomes. That is why the Government have committed to 10-year funding for key R&D activities where this certainty will make the most difference. Further details on this will come with the spending review. I am unable to give exact amounts—anyone in this Room will know that you cannot give exact amounts before a spending review—but I hope noble Lords hear my commitment to this area. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, will understand that you do not pre-empt spending reviews by announcing the outcomes.
The report we are debating speaks clearly about the late-stage funding gap. The interesting thing about the valley of death is that it moves; this one has moved from the very beginning to somewhat later in the process. As several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Mair and Lord Drayson, have said, the funding for this needs to be sustainable, allow scaling and have a UK base. We cannot afford for these companies to move overseas.
We absolutely get the need for a joined-up pipeline across all the areas we have talked about to help companies scale. I will list some of the actions taken, but I recognise that much more needs to be done.
The National Wealth Fund has deep pockets of £27.8 billion. Its new strategic direction, steered by the Chancellor, allows it to invest in technologies such as engineering biology. That is important, because that was not initially the focus. In private financing, the Mansion House compact, which has been discussed, could see us unlock £80 billion from pension funds, but, as of 2024, Mansion House signatories held only around 0.36% of their assets in unlisted equities against a target of 5% agreed in 2023. This needs to be driven faster, which is why the Pensions Minister is reviewing pensions investment, the outcomes of which will be shared shortly. Many noble Lords have observed, and I agree, that there is an opportunity here that is about not just science and technology companies but better pension returns. We will continue to encourage the rapid implementation of the Mansion House compact, and I assure noble Lords that DSIT is very involved in those discussion.
Government is doing better at being a customer via the new Procurement Act,as well as a champion procuring from UK engineering biology companies. For example, the Ministry of Defence supported C3 Biotech to establish its pilot facility in Stockport to produce aviation fuels from industrial waste. The new defence innovation unit will have a percentage of its spend on procurement of UK technologies.
I want to deal with the important question of IP. I am very well aware of its importance, but I want to correct an impression that might have been given. It is not the case that grants from UKRI have their IP taken. It is the case that for a very small subset, which is departmental contracts, it has been necessary to put in a clause on IP that is to do with the Subsidy Control Act. I am actively looking at this to see what can be done, but it is a very small percentage. The vast majority of UKRI grants—all grants, actually—and Innovate grants do not have that IP claim.
We are making sure that the UK has the right skills in the sector by looking at both building homegrown skills and the right approach to attracting talent from overseas. We rightly had questions on training from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, among others. Last year, the UK announced £10 million for a new centre for doctoral training for engineering biology; and, in January this year, UKRI opened a call for new doctoral focal award centres, worth £17 million. Indeed, it has put £16 million towards another important area that was raised—that of research technical professionals. These are the people who actually run the equipment and who have been ignored in the science system for a long period, much to the detriment of being able to run large bits of kit. There is more to be done, but having PhDs funded shows a very clear direction of travel. As the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, made clear, the overlap in other areas, including AI, is rather important.
We have four of the top 10 universities in the world. Being open to international talent is clearly a part of what makes our academic base, as well as our industrial base, so strong. Our funding offer is competitive, with prestigious fellowships and professorships from UKRI and the national academies, and we will do more. I assure noble Lords that they will shortly hear more about what we are doing specifically to try to make sure that we have an attractive inward route for people from around the world. This includes what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked me about in her comments.
Our continued partnership with Horizon Europe provides a route for European researchers to work with us. It is very important that we are back in that system. Fast-track visas for global talent, high-potential individuals and skilled workers give scientists opportunities to pursue paths to engineering biology opportunities in the UK. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants easier routes for scientists and technicians to come to the UK, and I continue to advocate for that. In the words of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we need more scientists. There is no doubt about that. We have never been and will never be self-sufficient in this area—and nor should we be, because this change of people from other countries is an important part of the scientific process.
Engineering biology needs a regulatory environment that can foster innovation and boost public confidence; without that, we cannot fully realise the benefits of what we have discussed. This issue was raised by a number of speakers. It is an urgent point to get right, which is why we established the Regulatory Innovation Office; I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is now leading it. We have a clear plan to push ahead fast with some changes. Noble Lords will have already seen some of the changes outlined by the noble Lord, including the sandbox for the Food Standards Agency, the work to have precision fermentation foods looked at by that agency, and new legislation on genetic technology for plants: the precision breeding Act, which is being discussed at the moment.
I turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. We can unlock the benefits of engineering biology only if the public want to use it and accept it. This will come only by building trust. The Government have been gauging public opinion, with two reports from UKRI and Sciencewise on applications in health and food, and a DSIT survey on public understanding last year. A group funded by UKRI, the Cellular Agriculture Manufacturing Hub, is looking at that space specifically. I commend to noble Lords the report from the Government Office for Science published in only the past couple of weeks, which—the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will be extremely pleased to hear—speaks directly to engineering biology in fashion, among other areas. Using the insights that we are getting, we will consider how best to continue to structure public engagement for regulated technologies so that we build awareness and the potential is understood.
Engineering biology needs specialist infrastructure, such as biofoundries and large-scale fermentation facilities. We must maintain what we have and build new scale-up infrastructure for SMEs. We have funded the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult to deliver a state-of-the-art manufacturing innovation centre for advanced therapies at Braintree, and the Centre for Process Innovation receives government funding to develop and retain engineering capabilities, including sustainable food production, in its novel foods facility. However—this is important—affordability is an issue. The CPI is now undertaking a study of 50:50 match funding in Greater Manchester in order to make it more accessible for engineering biology SMEs to access its facility. We know that affordable cost of access is a key requirement, which is why we are trialling this cost-sharing scheme. Incidentally, it is true that there are five biofoundries in the network that was referred to, but there are more than 11 in total across the UK. The variable access to them is an issue.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The wrong infrastructure solutions would come at a great cost to the taxpayer and would not be beneficial. There is no point in having facilities that lie idle or that are not at the cutting edge. We will continue to push to get them in the right place and get them accessible at the right cost.
Several of the speakers, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, asked about safety and responsible use. The Responsible Innovation Advisory Panel has been set up precisely to look at these issues. It has looked at gene synthesis and has issued guidance, and it will consider what else needs to be done there. It has looked at gain-of-function research, mirror life and gene drive, and will continue to do so. These issues are important, as are those of lab safety and security, which are being looked at by the Cabinet Office.
When it comes to the fundamental science and talent in engineering biology in this country, we are doing well. Our task now, as the report so clearly says, is to create a landscape of the right skills, infrastructure and interventions in finance, regulation and procurement, among other areas, and to partner across Whitehall to bring this science to life in applications that will affect pretty much every department.
The Government are taking the actions that will be required. We do not need more reviews now; we need action on what we have. This report has been an incredibly important part of that, so I again thank all the speakers today for their very insightful contributions.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, if an innovative company is looking to get some assistance in developing a product to market, it will go to the departments. The departments work with these small businesses on these pre-procurement issues. Innovate UK has these clauses in its contracts—I can show them to the Minister online, if we have to go to that extreme.
There is probably a difference from what universities have nowadays, which might offer pure research grants. However, as soon as a company gets anywhere near to seeking procurement—the thing that will open the door to being able to sell into the private sector and to build its reputation for export—the IP is undermined, including the background IP. I am sure that I can provide people who will sit with the Minister’s staff and show them the links.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I want to be absolutely clear: that is not the case for grants, whether they are for companies or academics; this applies only for a subset of contract research. I am looking at that to see what can be done, but it is a very small minority. I would not like noble Lords to go away thinking that it applies to companies overall—it does not if it is a grant.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he say one word about the regional distribution of work in this area? I have had an interesting approach from the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, saying that they have ambitions to be a regional hub in the north-east. Does my noble friend agree that it is important to spread out this work around the country and not concentrate it in one particular part?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. In fact, the biofoundries, the manufacturing side of this and the hubs are quite well spread out across the nations and, indeed, across the UK. I agree that it is important that we look at that as part of what we do, as we develop this as an important sector in the UK.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
Let me start by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We have heard some fascinating speeches; I apologise that I will not mention them all by name, but the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, gave us an absolute masterclass in managing to integrate previous comments into a very interesting speech. I say well done to all noble Lords and hope they will feel that they have therefore been mentioned.
Like others, I am sure, I very much look forward to the Science and Technology Committee’s current inquiry reporting on the situation for scale-ups in the UK and what needs to be done. That will be fascinating, and I wish the committee the very best of luck with it.
I will mention the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, because it was great to hear that the Engineering Biology Regulators Network is not now one of the best-kept state secrets. I congratulate him. The second regulatory sandbox for engineering biology sounds like a very exciting process, and the start of building regulatory capacity in the area, with the funding to the Food Standards Agency, are all very much appreciated. It was very good to hear about them.
I turn briefly to the Minister’s response. There were about four things that I thought were hugely important. The first thing he said was that “we cannot afford not to do this”. He then said, “We must act—and urgently”. We will want to hold him to those remarks, but it is great that he shares our thinking. It was also very encouraging to hear that the CPI is looking to address the affordability of access issue with a 50:50 match-funding programme. It was good to hear that the digital and technology sector 10-year plan includes engineering biology, but including engineering biology in digital and technology simply strengthens my feeling that it needs a national champion, because it will not be the obvious place for some people to put it. It was good to hear that we are approaching a national champion—with small steps—but we are not quite there yet, so I hope that we will hear more about that.
It was also really encouraging to hear the Minister say that the Government and he get the need for a joined-up pipeline to help companies scale, reminding us that the National Wealth Fund can now invest in engineering biology. However, the key question is: does it have the capability to know where to invest in engineering biology? Will it have the confidence to make those decisions?
It was also very exciting to be told that we will hear more about attracting the very best scientists, engineers and technologists from overseas, and that the Chancellor is very committed to easier routes for scientists and technicians to come here. We look forward to hearing more about some of those exciting areas soon.
This is an area where we really need a national strategy. A strategy starts with prioritisation, and lots of noble Lords talked about the importance of that, but it should also cover things such as public engagement, skills, regulation, standards, screening of sequences and concerns and all the other key areas that noble Lords talked about today.
We leave with absolute recognition that the Minister is committed to this, and looking forward to hearing very soon about the industrial strategy and understanding how it will support these critical foundational technologies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, I hope that the timing of this debate is an indicator of how seriously the Government are taking this.
Self-harm: Young People
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos
To ask His Majesty’s Government what up-to-date information they have on the level of self-harm among young people under the age of 18; and what plans they have to address the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, published data from NHS England shows that in 2023, 9.4% of 8 to 16 year-olds and 36.8% of 17 to 24 year-olds had tried to harm themselves at some point in their lives. We are committed to identifying children and young people, and adults, who have self-harmed or who are at risk, for tailored or targeted action, which also forms part of delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her helpful response, but is she aware of recent research for the WHO? More than a third of 15 year-olds said that they had deliberately self-harmed—one in two girls and one in five boys—but the gender gap is closing. Almost one in four of both girls and boys self-harmed in the last week, and nearly 90% of self-harm incidents involving12 to 17 year-olds are unreported. Perhaps the Minister could outline the Government’s plans for turning around this worrying and worsening trend.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I definitely share my noble friend’s concern about what is a worrying trend, and I can confirm that I am aware of the research to which he refers. In addition to the suicide prevention strategy, we are providing access to a specialist mental health professional in every school in England. We are rolling out Young Futures hubs and recruiting 8,500 mental health workers, and we continue to fund and benefit from the multi-centre study of self-harm to inform the development of policy and clinical practice, in order to tackle the very real and serious problem that my noble friend describes.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, we know that self-harm is most common amongst 15 to 24 year-olds, particularly young women. As we have already heard, there are so many challenges in accessing the mental health support that young people need that often, they cannot get it before their mental health problems get worse. The Minister already referred to the rollout of Young Futures hubs. Can she tell the House when there will be such a hub in every local area, to ensure that young people can access the support they need at the earliest signs of emerging mental health problems?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right that it is unacceptable that too many children and young people are not receiving the mental health care they need. Our determination to change that, as she says, is about rolling out Young Futures hubs in communities. We are at an early stage of developing the plans, and I very much look forward to continuing to work across government to deliver this and to updating your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, there has been an alarming number of so-called sextortion cases targeting teenagers who, tragically, have gone on to take their own lives. Are the Government working with schools to tackle the stigma that children sadly feel, and to give them the confidence to report this abuse?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very strong observation. The statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education is under review, and we are working closely with the Department for Education on that review. I emphasise again the funding of the multi-centre study of self-harm, whose work is vital in getting to the core of the issues the noble Baroness raises.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will, I know, agree that self-harm needs to be taken very seriously indeed. Access to child and adolescent mental health services has got worse. I am told—I hope that it is wrong—that in some parts of the country access is delayed for more than a year. Can the Minister assure the House that this is being addressed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can indeed assure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that this is being addressed, and I recognise the situation that he refers to. Early intervention on mental health is vital if we want to stop young people needing to reach for crisis support. Following on from my previous answer, there is no doubt that schools and colleges play an extremely important part, and that is why we have made the commitments on action that I previously outlined.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, last month, Susannah Hancock, a member of the Youth Justice Board, published her independent review into placement for girls in custody. Many of the professionals that she consulted through that review identified self-harm by girls in secure settings as one of the biggest areas of concern. In the 12 months to September 2024, 55% of all self-harm incidents in the youth custody service involved girls, although they make up only 1.6% of the total average population in these settings. Can the Minister assure me that her department intends to collaborate with the MoJ to act on the report’s partnership recommendation to ensure greater consistency of good practice in responding to girls in custody who self-harm, including developing clear and consistent protocols on whether and how restraint is used, in order to prevent further traumatisation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes some key points. I can certainly assure her that I am working with the MoJ on the area she describes, where risk is indeed high, despite the numbers. We must be very alert to that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we all know the importance of evidence in driving and developing better policy. Regarding the data, what do we know, what gaps in knowledge are the Government aware of and what are they doing to fill those gaps to drive better policy?
As an aside, how is the department working with, say, local community civil society projects, which may well be working in local communities with people who have self-harmed and survived or who are in danger of self-harming?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The role of civil society is crucial. I have had a number of very helpful meetings and visits, including most recently with the Samaritans. We very much believe that that sector supports the delivery of not just the national suicide prevention strategy, of which tackling self-harm is part, but tackling self-harm where it is not linked directly with suicide.
I refer the noble Lord to the work being undertaken by the multi-centre study of self-harm, which I know will be of interest. It has a long-standing research programme to keep an eye on—more than keep an eye on—and examine self-harm trends, and the findings also inform NICE clinical guidance. Recent research has looked at different ethnic minority groups, the characteristics and outcomes for children under 13 who self-harm, and patterns and risk factors for self-harm among university students—and that is just a snapshot.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, those of us who are not experts but have some direct experience of this problem know that self-harm is not just one thing; it can come in a number of forms. One of the problems for families is that it is not always easy to spot, at least not initially. Can my noble friend say in what way families are being supported to identify and then help young people who are beginning to exhibit signs of self-harm?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right: it is crucial that, where they are able to, friends, family and communities assist those at risk and those who are actually self-harming. The recommendation is that people should not hesitate to speak to a GP or access the free listening services that are available through not just the NHS but the Samaritans, for example.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The publication of the online safety children’s code by Ofcom last week received mixed reviews from many and a howl of fury from both Ian Russell and the Children’s Commissioner. Can the Minister say what the Government make of the fact that the children’s code makes no provision whatsoever for live streaming, nor for deliberately extending its use, both of which increase harm and were identified in the evidence of Ofcom itself?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is a matter, as the noble Baroness knows, for my ministerial colleagues in DSIT, and I will gladly raise her comments with them. Obviously, the Online Safety Act requires all sites in scope to rapidly remove illegal suicide and self-harm content and proactively protect users from illegal content. I am aware of the differences of opinion that the noble Baroness refers to, and I will gladly take that up with my colleagues.
Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls: Funding
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether funding they provide to tackle violence against women and girls is available through open application processes; and what assessment they have made of the impact on women’s organisations which cannot access such funding.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Home Office ran a competition for an £8.3 million fund for 2023-25 for “by and for” and specialist victims’ support services. No competition was run in 2025-26; the funding decisions for 2025-26 were on the basis of impact, quality of delivery, value for money and our policy objectives. We recognise the importance of opening up opportunities to access funding for organisations tackling violence against women and girls, and are currently deciding our approach and provision for 2026 onwards.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, minority ethnic women face higher rates of domestic homicide and suicide linked to abuse, yet successive Governments continue to laud how much they are funding to tackle FGM, honour-based abuse and forced marriage, even though the main killer of minority ethnic women is intimate partner abuse, which barely gets a mention. The white lens through which black and Asian women are viewed needs to change. Will the Minister consider this? Funding is inaccessible to small specialist providers, particularly faith-based ones. According to civil servants, direct funding from the Home Office for any type of new applicant will not be available for another two years. Will the Government review their current position and make funding available this year to tackle domestic abuse in faith communities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I recognise the issues that the noble Baroness has raised. We have met outside the Chamber to discuss those issues and I am happy to reflect upon what she said as a whole. She will know that the Home Office has increased the funding on violence against women and girls by some 36% in this current year over what the previous Government were funding, to over £102 million. We will look at a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls in the summer as part of the Government’s plan for change to ensure that we halve domestic violence and violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. The target issues that she has mentioned are extremely important in that, and I hope that we can reflect on that and continue the dialogue that we have had.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Government have clearly set themselves a very taxing target to halve violence against women and girls. Value and cost effectiveness are hugely important. The current short inquiry, whose invitation to submit evidence has just closed, will need a radical new approach, and not all organisations will get funding support, even though they have in the past. How do the Government plan to manage quality applications for funding and any transition for unsuccessful applicants and, even more importantly, the support services that women are able to access even now?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I should not repeat myself, but the Government are currently developing a strategy on violence against women and girls. We are hoping to produce that during the summer at the very latest. We have increased the funding overall by some 36% to £102 million. We are looking at how that resource is allocated. No decisions were made this year because of the issues around the spending review to ensure that we can do exactly what the noble Baroness wants; that is, to ensure that organisations have stability, know what expenditures are coming downstream over a longer period, and are not left in the lurch in relation to a loss of services. We are in a period of flux, but the Government’s intention is extremely clear: to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period, and the funding has been put in to begin that process this year.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, one of the reasons that some groups still think that young girls should be subjected to female genital mutilation is because they believe they are religiously instructed so to do. In fact, there is no foundation at all for this in the Koran and, therefore, one of the most important ways of combating FGM is through education. It is not just education about the Koran, but about the fact that people take children abroad to be cut as well as doing it here. One way to combat this is through those groups that are working in the educational field, some of which tell me that they find it very hard to access funding. Will the Minister look closely at that, because they will be doing the Government’s job in a certain way in trying to fight FGM?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the question. FGM is a crime: it should be recognised as a crime and prosecuted as a crime. The Government have put in place additional support at borders to ensure that we monitor individuals who may be taken abroad for FGM—which, again, is a crime—and we are planning additional resources and measures on that. The noble Lord is absolutely right that education and wider knowledge of that crime are extremely important. As he said, there is no religious basis for it; it is a crime, it should be treated as such and this Government will do that.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the domestic violence strategy that the Minister mentioned will be very welcome, as it is much needed. But does he accept, as we all know—the figures are stark—that violence against women and girls is on the rise? It is an epidemic in this country, and the funding gap is still there even with the increase that he outlined. Many of the organisations to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, referred, rely on a range of funding from local authorities, charities and so on. A lot of these funding streams are being cut and drying up, particularly in local government. Is he satisfied that women, particularly those from minority backgrounds who need specialist support, as we have heard, will still be able to access the support—in many cases, life-saving support—that they need?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am never satisfied, because we have to ensure that we tackle these crimes head on. That is why development of the strategy on violence against women and girls, led by my honourable friend in the House of Commons, Jess Phillips, is extremely important. The Home Office resources I mentioned have gone up by 36% to over £100 million, but the Ministry of Justice is also providing significant amounts of resource for preventive activity on violence against women and girls, including by investing in action on perpetrators who have been sentenced and will come out at some point in the future. There is a local authority role as well. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that we have set an ambitious target; it is ambitious for the reason that this is a crime and it needs to be driven down. Therefore, with her help and that of others, when that strategy is published, we will achieve those objectives over that 10-year period.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, in its 2025 Annual Audit report, the charity Women’s Aid noted that just over half of all referrals into community-based domestic abuse support services were rejected. Some 23% of these rejections were because the service could not contact the client. This suggests that many victims of domestic abuse are not able to access the services that they need and are at risk of slipping through the cracks because of communications issues. I am sure the Minister will understand these concerns, so will he outline the steps that the Government are taking to assist support services to contact the women and girls who are referred to them, so that no one who needs help is missed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is extremely important that those who need that help and support get it. It is one reason why we have continued the work of the previous Government in funding a national helpline on violence against women and girls, which includes help and support for victims of honour-based violence as well. There are always improvements that can be made and, as part of the development of the strategy, we will be looking at what is most effective over those 10 years to ensure that we help and support victims, that we reduce the number of perpetrators and that those who have been convicted of perpetrating these offences are supported by the Ministry of Justice to turn their lives around when they come out of prison. The noble Baroness makes some valid points, but I hope she will examine the strategy in detail when it is published.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Is the Home Office discussing with the Department for Education what sort of training is being given in schools, particularly to boys?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at that for the noble and learned Baroness. Again, I am accountable for this area, but the direct responsibility is with my colleague Jess Phillips. I will raise that with her to see what discussions are going on, but the noble and learned Baroness can rest assured that the strategy we are bringing forward on violence against women and girls is a cross-government strategy, to which all departments are contributing. I will examine the specific responsibilities of the DfE and get back to the noble and learned Baroness.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s strategy is welcome, particularly in so far as it affects women in the country who have linguistic and cultural difficulties in trying to articulate what is happening to them and trying to seek help. Given that one-third of complaints about domestic violence are made by men and boys, and that number is increasing, what plans do the Government have to enhance provision for those men and young boys who are subject to domestic violence?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. Domestic violence is seen through the window of being violence against women, but it is also male on male, female on male, and a range of other forms. I will take that away and respond to her in due course.
Farming: 25-year Road Map
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish the 25-year farming roadmap, announced in November 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are planning to publish the first iteration of the farming road map, on growing England’s future, later this year. The Government are working together with farmers to develop the road map and set the course of farming for the next 25 years. The ultimate aim is to maintain food production, meet our environmental outcomes, and deliver a thriving and profitable farming sector.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the confirmation that the road map will be published later this year. Generally, what will the timeline for implementation be? Specifically, will it take forward recommendation 12 of the Corry review, which made it clear that we must
“reform slurry application and storage to help address diffuse water pollution from agricultural sources”,
implementing
“a single set of regulations which farmers can understand and comply with”?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, the first iteration will be published later this year. As we are still in the process of determining the content of the road map, and therefore the timetable of implementation, I am unable to give a detailed answer to my noble friend. We will publish more details in due course. I can assure her that we are continuing with targeted engagement right across the sector in order that we can agree a collective vision and shape the first version of the farming road map through discussion with stakeholders.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern at the loss of farmland, to the tune of 10%, through the proposed clean energy projects? Will she ensure that the road map rolls back this land grab and ensures that all grade 1, 2 and 3 farmland—the most productive land—will remain in farm production, putting food security and self-sufficiency at the heart of the road map?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that food production and self-sufficiency will be at the heart of the road map as it is developed. We work very closely with DESNZ around where energy projects are sited. With the land use framework also being developed, there is a lot of discussion about the best use of farmland, because we do not want good agricultural land taken out of food production.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in order to meet the combined objectives of food security and nature recovery, we need a much more nature-friendly form of farming. However, to make that transition, it is absolutely essential that we have a much firmer policy framework that people in farming can predict. When will the sustainable farming initiative be reinstated? Beyond that, can the Minister say that there will be an end to the stop-start funding that is so difficult for farmers when it comes to their own planning?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the challenges that has faced farming for many years is the lack of long-term security. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise that. We are currently discussing the next stages of the SFI, so I do not have information about the dates at the moment. We will of course announce that when we have more information. We want to make sure that the next iteration of the SFI is fit for purpose and will deliver what we need the farming sector to deliver. On the noble Lord’s questions on nature and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that we get this right. We have to ensure that food production and support for nature and biodiversity work together, hand-in-hand, to create the long-term environment that we need for our country.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I welcome the road map, but can the Minister confirm that fruit and vegetable growers will be very much part of this review? The removal of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme has caused considerable distress among those growers, and the fact that the scheme still exists in Scotland means that our fruit and vegetable growers are no longer competing on a level playing field.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are very keen to ensure that horticulture remains at the heart of any future farming plans. If we are to have a thriving food sector and become more sustainable, fruit and vegetables will clearly be critical to that, as currently we import so much of them. Obviously, I cannot say what will be included in the road map, but horticulture is at the heart of our discussions.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend explain why it is called a road map? Is it going to include all those new roads that I hope the Government are not going to build over farmland? Can we not have a better name for it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I suggest that we have answers on a postcard.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I refer the House to my entry on the register of interests as a farmer. Part of the new deal for farmers, published in January by the Secretary of State, was to diversify income streams for farmers. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as drafted, will divert nature restoration levies away from farmers to Natural England. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House why this should not be taken as a reduction in diversification opportunities for farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, food production, diversification and improvements in the environment are the three central pillars of the road map that we are developing—we are extremely keen to ensure that diversification is part of it. One problem that many farmers have faced in the past is not being able to get through the planning applications that are so critical to diversification. Again, that is something that we are looking at as part of our reform of the planning system.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that over 60% of the food we have here comes over the water to this country. Bearing in mind that we are about to have a national security strategy and a strategic defence review, can she confirm that Defra has been very involved with putting into this review the fact that we are an island nation and so need to ensure that we have security of the water over which all of this food passes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Food security is not just about what we grow in this country; it is also about what we import. We can never grow everything that we need, so having security of the waters is critical. I am certain that the noble Lord would support any work that Defra is doing to ensure that we have that security. Border Force does a lot of work as well, which is critical.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, can we not get too bound up about a 25-year road map, whatever it is called? What we are worried about is a 25-month road map. The farming sector is under great strain as a direct consequence of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced quite recently. How many farm holdings does the Minister think there will be in 25 months as a direct consequence of what the Government are doing, and what effect will that have upon the rural, and therefore the national, economy?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am aware that there are a lot of concerns around some of the recent decisions regarding funding and farming. However, one reason this has been quite difficult is that farming has been facing a lot of challenges for many years now. There has been far too little security for farmers and far too little decent payment to farmers for the goods that they have been producing. The point of the farming road map is to provide some long-term security for the first time in many years.
Lord Trees (CB)
I want to press the Minister on the land use framework and when we might see that. It will be essential to ensuring that we have a coherent and strategic plan for how we use all the land in the limited area that we have in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The land use framework will be critical in a lot of areas. Because we have only a limited amount of land, we have to ensure that we are using it in the best interests of the country, whether that is for supporting farmers and food production, for energy production or for housing and so on. It is important that we are bringing that together. I do not have a date for the noble Lord today, but I assure him that we are actively progressing the report.
Lord Swire (Con)
Self-evidently there will be no food security without food, and there will be no food without farmers. What are the Government going to do about the ageing population of farmers and to encourage younger people into farming, at a time when the farming sector has been so horribly undermined by the Government’s own legislation?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The average age of farmers has been a problem for many years; there has not been succession planning in the way that perhaps there has for other businesses, because of the nature of farming. We are working closely with the Department for Education on skills. Young people can be encouraged to show an interest from an early age through going to agricultural college, for example, and all these things help. We need to look at how young people can get the right skills to want to go into farming in the first place. It is important that farms are available for new entrants, and that is something that we need to be working on—too many county farms were sold, for example. There is quite a lot of work to be done in this area.
Thames Water: Bids
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what guarantees they expect to give to, or receive from, any bidder for Thames Water.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
I had almost relaxed then.
My Lords, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment in detail on a company’s commercial regulations. Ofwat notes that the company has now moved to the next stage in its equity raise process, and it continues to engage with the company to ensure the delivery of the financial and operational turnaround that both customers and the environment deserve. Any investors will be expected to show that Thames Water will meet its statutory and regulatory obligations.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Let us look at the facts. Thames Water was put on the road to ruin by private equity. Now its shareholders have designated KKR, another private equity group, as their preferred bidder. KKR’s business model is profiteering, high leverage, low investment, asset stripping and high cash extraction. That will inevitably multiply Thames’s problems. The Water Industry Act 1991 gives the Secretary of State powers to vary the licensing conditions. We need to know precisely what the Government will demand from the new owners of a company that already has 187 criminal convictions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Regarding the company choosing KKR as its preferred bidder in the ongoing equity raise process, clearly Thames Water is a commercial entity engaged in a public equity raise, and it would therefore be completely inappropriate for the Government to comment on that. However, I note that the company had a number of potential bidders to choose from, which indicates that a market-led solution to the financial resilience of the company is a possibility.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government must protect future bill payers from past mismanagement and a debt that should clearly sit with the vulture funds and bond holders who have in effect asset-stripped Thames Water, leaving it without proper investment and vulnerable to repeated environmental hazards and therefore in strong danger of being in breach of its own statutory duties? Surely the only way to protect those bill payers is by putting it into special administration.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, a special administration order is the mechanism to ensure that the company continues to operate and customers continue to receive their water and wastewater services. However, the bar for entering special administration is understandably high; the law states that it can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, can no longer fulfil its statutory duties or seriously breaches an enforcement order, and Thames Water does not fit those criteria, despite all its other problems. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that we are currently monitoring the situation closely.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, 90% of England’s water and sewerage services are owned by foreign investors. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so happy for that to happen but not happy to allow us to buy our own vital resources back? It seems madness to allow our vital infrastructure to be owned by foreign states.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, water privatisation happened quite a long time ago now, which was when different foreign states came in and invested in our water system. I am sure the noble Baroness is very aware of the work going on through the Cunliffe review at the moment in order to try to get our water companies into a better state. The Government are very keen that we sort out the problem with Thames Water, but that is Ofwat’s and the company’s responsibility at present and we are just watching to ensure that Thames Water does not fail, because we cannot afford to have water companies failing.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister, in light of the depressing state of British Steel, inform the House whether shareholders from any particular geographies would be excluded from investing in or controlling our water industry?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot specifically answer that question. I am very happy to go away and look into it for the noble Lord.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister saw the very shocking two-part documentary series on BBC Two about Thames Water, which was made in conjunction with the Open University. If she has seen it, does she agree that the dire position we face on sewage spills is at least to some extent down to severe regulatory failure, the regulator’s focus on the price charged for water and the apparent complete failure to insist on the massive investment needed to upgrade our water and sewerage infrastructure?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I did watch the programmes. I think the straightforward answer to this is that that is why we have Sir Jon Cunliffe carrying out the review, which will look very carefully at the way the water industry has been regulated. One of the things that came across from that programme was the argument that it had been carrying out what Ofwat had asked it to do, which was keep prices low, and because of that there was not sufficient investment. We can look at that in more detail and I am sure that different water companies have interpreted rules from Ofwat in different ways. But the important thing is that we now look very carefully at regulation to make sure that in future it is fit for purpose and we do not end up in situations like we are in at the moment.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has reminded us that privatisation of the water industry was quite some time ago. I wonder whether she could dig into the archives to check exactly how much was received by the Exchequer at the time of privatisation and, by way of comparison, find a figure for the total amount of profits made by these companies since privatisation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would be more than happy to dig in the archives.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is it not time that Ofwat was put out of its misery?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall feed that back to the commission.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the water industry serves a public good and putting it into private ownership needs very careful handling. It seems to me that Governments over successive years have not paid sufficient attention to the financial dealings that were going on, extracting dividends, not just profits, from these companies. In addition, the companies know that the regulator is not sufficiently resourced to check sewage discharges, for example. I know the Minister is very concerned about that herself. Can she give some reassurance to the House that any new owner of Thames Water would inject sufficient equity capital into the structure and not just debt and would be charged with investing sufficiently and being monitored sufficiently to make sure that past practices are not repeated?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, as I have mentioned, this is a private company and it is the company’s decision around this, so the Government cannot comment too much on what is happening. But in order to resolve the situation we have come into regarding sewage spills and the quality of our lakes and rivers, we need to ensure sufficient investment. I would very much hope that any company coming into our water industry would come with the intention to make that investment. After all, the price increases we have allowed water companies to make to their bills through the PR24 is on the understanding that that investment will take place.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
How many of the countries in western Europe and how many of the states in north America have privately owned water, and how many have water in the public sector? Is there not a conclusion to be drawn from what the Minister will now tell us?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are a number that are government owned and a number that are privately owned. When you look at the quality of water, you see that it does not matter whether they are privately owned or owned by a Government; it is how it is managed that makes the big difference.
London Sudan Conference
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the current situation in Sudan is truly appalling. Millions of Sudanese citizens have been internally displaced. Millions more have been forced to flee as refugees. Tens of thousands have been killed as a result of the awful violence in the region, which often seems designed to cause innocent people as much suffering as possible.
Can the Minister give us an update on how the conference went? Can she assure us that the UK will continue to work with the international community to ensure that the abhorrent atrocities that are being committed by both sides in Sudan are documented so that the perpetrators of those awful crimes can be held to account in the future?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his agreement with us about the nature of the conflict in Sudan and, as he quite rightly said, the horrific impact it is having on civilians—not least on women and very young children, who have been subject to the most violent sexual attacks. I can assure him that we will continue to do everything we can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict, difficult though that undoubtedly is.
The conference that we held in London during recess involved Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, as well as Norway, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, the UN and the League of Arab States. We hosted it alongside the African Union. This was a good step, and there was a co-chairs’ statement at the end. This is unlikely to be a situation that is resolved by one intervention such as a conference, but it is right for the Foreign Secretary to show leadership, bring people together and try to at least take the first steps towards improving the situation.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger. I welcome the focus that the Government are giving to the Sudan crisis. However, the Minister will be aware of the critical need to scale up the humanitarian response before the rainy season starts in June, when humanitarian access will become even more difficult. In that context, could she expand on whether the conference concluded specific outcomes on humanitarian access, what the next steps are following the conference and how the Government will ensure that the additional —and welcome—humanitarian funding announced will get to the agencies on the ground as swiftly as possible?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the important issue of access for humanitarian support and aid. The conference was not designed as a pledging conference to raise money, but it did instigate the raising of £800 million towards supporting humanitarian work in Sudan for those who have been displaced. As he will know, there are many people who are now living in neighbouring countries in very difficult conditions. The safety of aid workers, access for aid and the protection of civilians were the three things that were agreed at the conference. We have committed to continuing to work to improve the situation on the ground, difficult though that is.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, last week I attended a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, of which I am a member, on the subject of sexual and gender-based violence in Sudan. Panellists expressed their frustration at the absence of Sudanese civil society actors at the conference. Given the FCDO’s often expressed commitment to supporting civil society in such engagements, how will the Government incorporate their voices in future diplomatic initiatives?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very good point. The conference is not our only effort; it was a one-day event that was focused on representatives from government, but I met a leading female civil society activist from Sudan very recently. The noble Lord is right that civil society organisations are often the very best with which to engage, because the context of getting support into Sudan is so difficult. We know that it is almost always women who bear the brunt in these situations, and it is vital that we continue to be reminded of that.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, there was much mention at the conference, given the statements that came out of it, of a rejection of external interference, but there were people there who are externally interfering, such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Although the focus on humanitarian access is absolutely right, there is also the problem of gold, and that the conflict is being fuelled by the economic element of ownership and extraction of gold. Do the Government have any plans to approach the economic benefits to the warring parties as a way of stopping the conflict?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As many in this Chamber who have followed not just the events in Sudan but conflicts throughout recent history will appreciate, it is often a good thing to start conversations on areas where we can find agreement. That is why we focused on humanitarian aid and the protection of civilians. There are 30 million people in need of aid in the region, so that was the right thing to do. On the wider issues that the right reverend Prelate raises, our position is very clear that it is not right that third parties or other countries are involving themselves in this, and we urge them not to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, following the killing on 12 April of nine international relief organisation workers at Zamzam displacement camp in northern Darfur, will the Minister look into reports today that a militia from the Rapid Support Forces has arrested 40 aid workers and 50 civilians during an evacuation at Zamzam? Building on what she has just said to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, how does she respond to Rosemary DiCarlo, the United Nations under-secretary for political and peacebuilding affairs, who said that
“if the parties have been able to sustain their confrontation, it is in no small part thanks to the material support they receive from outside the Sudan. These … flout the sanctions regime … thereby fueling the conflict. This is illegal, it is immoral and it must stop”?
What are we doing, therefore, to challenge the countries responsible for this trade in death and human misery, and to finally end it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are clear that the conflict needs to end and that anyone with any influence over any of the warring parties should use it to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion. I am happy to look into the reports—which I was not aware of—that the noble Lord just raised about recent events in Zamzam, and to get back to him about that.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned that no contact group was set up for the conflict after the conference? Can she tell the House what assessment she has made of the withdrawal of USAID support?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, the withdrawal of USAID support is having an impact in many places around the world, and we are doing what we can. One of the outcomes from the conference, although not an aim of it, was that £800 million was raised, which is positive. But the noble Lord is right to raise the impact of the withdrawal of USAID as well. It is a mistake to impose a test of the success or failure of a conference such as the one we led that is about whether there was an agreed statement or a contact group. Clearly, ideally, you would have those things, but let us be realistic about where this is. If that became the test of a successful conference, I would venture to say that fewer leaders would take the steps that our Foreign Secretary did. This is protracted, long-standing and fiendishly difficult to resolve, but our Foreign Secretary cares deeply about it and wants to use his convening power to make progress. That is what he has done and will continue to do.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, no one doubts for one moment the Minister’s sincerity and activity and those of her colleagues the Minister for Africa and the Foreign Secretary on this issue. But the reality is that, only yesterday, news came out of Omdurman that some 31 people, including women and children, were executed. It was not a question of being caught in crossfire; they were executed by the Rapid Support Forces. We know that the churches are actively engaged with the Islamic community in promoting conflict resolution and peacebuilding—the Holy Father gave ample evidence of this. So, if civil society was not represented adequately at the conference—and it was not—what practical steps of support will HMG give to faith-based groups to tackle this issue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The reality is exactly as the noble Lord describes. This is the worst humanitarian situation on the planet at the moment. It gets too little attention, but this Government want to use their influence, multilaterally and with partners in the region, to improve it. He is right to say that we ought to work more closely with faith and civil society organisations. We are doing that and, where we can do more, we will.
Ukraine War: London Talks
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I have said it before, but I will say it again: these Benches are supportive of the Government’s action, continuing the work that we started in government, in full support of and solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This morning has seen an announcement from Putin of another temporary ceasefire. Time will tell as to whether this is just another cynical Russian delaying tactic, but I will be interested in the Government’s views on this development. Also, will the noble Baroness update the House on the progress of the so-called coalition of the willing? It seems to have gone quiet recently. Is this initiative still progressing and what role does she see it playing in any eventual peace settlement?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for again stating his support for and solidarity with the Government on the issue of Ukraine. What do we think about Putin’s claims for a ceasefire? There is an option open to the Russian leadership which would lead to a ceasefire immediately. They do not have to promise one on a particular day or in a few days’ time; they could do it now. We could find no evidence of the ceasefire they said they were going to have at Easter, so we are sceptical. On the coalition of the willing, it is the right approach, and it continues. We do not do a running commentary on every piece of negotiation or diplomacy, and the noble Lord will understand why that is, but this Government—and, all credit to them, the Opposition—remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The Easter truce seemed to be an opportunity for Vladimir Putin and his Government to trawl Hansard and work out which Members of the other place and your Lordships’ House needed to be sanctioned, so I start by declaring my interest as one of the people sanctioned by the Russian Government last week. I believe I have simply been doing my job as the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson in your Lordships’ House, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians, the official Opposition and the Government in saying that we must support Ukraine for as long as this war takes.
I certainly do not intend to change the rhetoric I have been using, but let me outline one of my concerns. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, initially there was international concern, but nobody now talks about the fact that Russia still occupies 20% of the territory. If some negotiated solution were to occur on the basis of the current Russian occupation of Ukraine, that, again, would involve about 20% of the territory. What signal does that send to Poland, the Baltic states and other Russian neighbours? Does it not say that we really need to keep standing up and supporting Ukraine, and stop Russia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our position on the territorial integrity of Ukraine is unchanged. On the issue of negotiated outcomes, we remain of the view that that is for Ukraine to decide and not for others to determine. As far as the sanctions against parliamentarians goes, I would wear that as a badge of honour if I were the noble Baroness. She does a very good job for her party and for the country when she stands up in this place and elsewhere in support of Ukraine, and although she does not need me to, I urge her to continue to do so.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear what advice President Trump is giving to President Zelensky in relation to the proposed plan. Does our advice to President Zelensky differ in any way from that of President Trump?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is a wily operator in this House. We agree with the President of the United States in that we want to see peace and we want to see this conflict resolved. I would not characterise the nature of the conversations that Prime Minister Starmer has with President Zelensky as advice, and nor would I wish to comment on the similarities and differences—or anything else, really—in the nature of those private conversations.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the objective of President Putin in these matters is to bar Ukraine from ever being a member of NATO—in eternity—because were it to be encapsulated in an agreement under international law, Russia would have a veto on it? If that is the case, how does she consider that consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, which says that a member of the United Nations has the right to determine its own allies when it wishes?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As we have said in this Chamber many times, the intention of Russia is clearly to prevent Ukraine behaving as an independent sovereign state: it wants to choose Ukraine’s future for it, and that really is what this war is all about. We are firm in the view that Ukraine and the Ukrainians get to decide the future of their country, not Russia.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we know that there is not the slightest chance of negotiation while Russia continues its systematic murder of Ukrainians. That is obvious, but does the Minister agree that, even if it came to some kind of initial negotiation, it will be bound to lay down only temporary arrangements of any kind because nobody can be trusted—and if it comes to the ceding of land, very temporary? These things will be under constant dispute for years ahead. But does she recall that two or three years ago, Moscow announced that it approved the idea of Luhansk and Donetsk as separate “independent” republics. Did that come into the negotiation, the discussion, at any point in recent days? It was not mentioned in the other place, yet I feel it is a piece of the jigsaw that may lead to possibilities.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not know, is the honest answer to that question. I do not think it would be helpful for us to pick over the details of what is said in these conversations, but we have a very clear position on the territorial integrity of Ukraine being sacrosanct and it being for the Ukrainians to determine the future geography of their country. That is a clear position and one we need to stick to and continue to restate.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, that position is very honourable, but the Minister said a moment ago that Russia should not determine the future of Ukraine. Should the United States?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is for the people of Ukraine to determine their own future. That has been the bedrock of the position of this Government from the very beginning, and I do not see that changing.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, while it is understandable that the Minister cannot say too much about the coalition of the willing, one thing is very clear: we will need feet on the ground in due course for peace in Ukraine. Might we start giving some thought to how we can raise the additional resources that will be needed there, and how we approach this? Maybe we should be talking about a peace corps and peace groups, rather than talking in old war terms; that might attract more people into the forces.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I remind noble Lords of the announcement that was made some weeks ago now about increasing defence spending—at the expense of my own overseas development budget. We are putting the additional resources into defence, and I think it right that we do that at this time, because we need to stand ready to do what we need to do to support Ukraine. Clearly, that is not just about people; it is about technology, cybersecurity, securing undersea cables and so on. A modern defence offer looks very different from how it may have looked in the past, but my noble friend is right to remind us that this is a long-standing commitment: we have just recently agreed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, last week in Grand Committee, we discussed in depth the 100-year partnership between Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Both during evidence and in that debate, the Government were very bullish about the opportunities, and the Minister herself has just talked about some of those. Which Government department will be co-ordinating the implementation of that partnership between our two countries, and when will we start to see the flesh on the bones of that? There is an awful lot of detail that still needs to be set out.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think this is going to be done across departments. There are different chapters to the agreement and there will be different needs for different elements of it. The noble Lord is right: it needs to be fleshed out and more detail needs to be provided. However, we are committed to this: it is a 100-year arrangement, and we want to make progress on it. There are some things that are already happening, as the noble Lord knows. I look forward to coming back to the House with more information; I think there will be widespread support for it.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move to the debate on the amendments, I will make a statement. I remind the House again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the last two days in Committee, that is sufficient, but, if this your first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared in a specific but brief way.
Amendment 69
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Assessment of operation of possession process(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—(a) on applications made by landlords the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and(b) such orders are enforced.(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.(3) In this section—“assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;“dwelling” means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;“regulated tenancy” means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to assess the operation of the possession process to ensure that the courts service has the capacity to deal with the increased demand expected because of this Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their amendments.
Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to issue a plea. I hope the Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for her. However, so far in Committee, we have been disappointed with the responses we have received to our debates and amendments. I can say in good conscience that, when I sat in her seat on her side of the Chamber, I treated every amendment put before me with respect; I often took issues back to the department to consider and, where possible, made changes. That is because I understood that it was the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Unfortunately, it does not feel like this is still happening. Questions go unanswered and suggestions are dismissed without sufficient consideration.
This House has always been more about reason and substance than blind political ideology. I hope that the Minister can approach our debates going forward in that vein. I know full well that Ministers cannot always have the answers at their fingertips, and I am very happy to have written answers on points of details. However, I do ask that the Minister treats our House and our suggestions seriously, in the nature that they are intended.
This group addresses a critical issue that will determine the success or failure of the Bill: the capacity of our courts to deliver it. Let me say from the outset that we fully support the ambition to strengthen security and fairness in the private rented sector. That commitment was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Within that, the previous Conservative Government set out that Section 21 would not be abolished until meaningful court reform had been undertaken and sufficient progress achieved. Such caution was not merely prudent but essential, considering the challenges facing our courts system.
This Bill abandons the careful sequencing we set out under the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Under our approach, Section 21 would not have been abolished until meaningful improvements had been made to His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. We also committed to a six-month implementation period for new tenancies to ensure that the system could cope. These safeguards were not incidental; they were essential.
However, in this Bill, those safeguards are gone. There is no clear commitment to upgrade court capacity before abolishing Section 21 and no phased rollout to protect the system from being overwhelmed. As a result, we face a real risk that our courts will be asked to carry out a far more demanding role without the necessary resources, reforms or readiness.
The ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill is commendable, but ambition alone is not enough. We must also confront the operational realities. This legislation will place significant demands on our already stretched courts and tribunals system. If we press ahead without ensuring that the system is properly resourced, modernised and fully functional, we risk undermining the very objectives that the Bill sets out to achieve. Tenants and landlords alike need a process they can trust: one that is timely, fair and accessible. Without that, this reform will falter at the first hurdle.
Let us be clear about the scale of what we are asking the courts to do under this legislation. With the removal of Section 21, we are fundamentally reshaping the legal framework for possession. Possession cases that might previously have been resolved swiftly, albeit controversially, will now be channelled through more complex, contested grounds. This is a just and necessary step, but it is one that demands an equal and opposite increase in our ability to administer justice efficiently.
Yet the system is not ready. The Civil Justice Council, the Law Society and countless court users have been sounding the alarm for years. Backlogs are rising, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin. In some parts of the country, landlords wait months, not weeks, for a simple hearing. In turn, tenants are left in limbo and often under the threat of eviction without resolution or recourse.
We must remember that delay is not neutral. It is not a benign inconvenience. It is a deeply disruptive force in people’s lives. For a landlord, it might mean months without rental income, with mortgage arrears mounting. For a tenant, it means living in a state of uncertainty. That silence—those weeks and months of not knowing—is not just stressful but debilitating. It leaves tenants feeling powerless and unable to plan their future and move forward.
It is for that reason that I urge the Minister to consider carefully Amendment 69 in my name, which requires the Lord Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the possession process. This assessment would examine how county courts handle applications from landlords for possession of properties under both assured and regulated tenancies, and how those orders are subsequently enforced.
This is a foundational step. If we are to move away from Section 21, we must be absolutely confident that the remaining legal routes for possession are functioning effectively, fairly and in a timely manner. This is not just a tick-box exercise; it is about ensuring we have a legitimate understanding of where our courts stand, their capacity and whether they are in any fit state to take on the increased volume and complexity of cases that this Bill will inevitably bring.
The amendment ensures transparency, accountability and evidence-based implementation. Without such an assessment, we risk walking blindly into a situation where the courts become the bottleneck, where neither landlords nor tenants can get timely access to justice. Likewise, Amendment 283 provides an essential safeguard. It would ensure that Section 21 cannot be abolished until the assessment outlined in Amendment 69 has been published and, crucially, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have the capacity to manage the increased demand. This is not an attempt to delay reform indefinitely; it is a commonsense measure to ensure that reform is deliverable. It puts the infrastructure in place before the policy takes effect. Without this step, we risk setting both tenants and landlords adrift in a system that simply cannot cope.
I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this very significant group. The amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in particular, underscore the necessity of certifying that the court system has the capacity to manage the anticipated increase in possession cases. Amendment 279 in his name stipulates:
“None of the provisions of this Act, other than this subsection, come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time for the court’s disposal of landlords possession actions in respect of residential property is as timely as in the year ending 23 March 2020”.
This benchmark is not arbitrary. It reflects a period when the system was functioning at a level that we can reasonably expect to return to. Furthermore, Amendment 280, also in his name, reinforces this by requiring the Secretary of State to certify that the courts are not only timely but efficient and adequately resourced to handle the increased caseload.
These amendments are not about delaying progress. They are about ensuring that progress is achievable and that the reforms we implement are not undermined by an overburdened and underresourced court system. As we have discussed, the abolition of Section 21 will undoubtedly lead to more contested possession proceedings. Without the necessary court capacity, we risk exacerbating the very issue that we seek to address: delays, uncertainty and a lack of access to justice for both tenants and landlords. The amendments before us today provide a prudent and responsible approach to ensuring that our court system is ready to meet these challenges.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments. They represent a balanced approach that aligns the ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill with the practical realities of our courts system. We have noble Lords present who are experts in that system and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name has much in common with the other amendments in this group, which are probing amendments to see whether the capacity of the courts is up to dealing with the cases that are likely to come before them—not least the likely increase in possession cases when the Act is implemented, and of course to deal with any backlog that has accrued between now and when it comes into effect.
Amendment 283, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, is the most demanding of the amendments. It basically defers the abolition of Section 21 until an assessment of court capacity has been completed and the Secretary of State is satisfied about capacity. Amendment 69 finds her in a more conciliatory mood. That amendment does not delay the abolition of Section 21 but requires the Lord Chancellor to monitor progress and ensure that the capacity is there, and it sets no time limit on that assessment. My Amendment 205 finds a middle way, requiring the assessment to be carried out within six months of the passage of the Bill, while Amendment 264, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is more generous, allowing two years. Neither would hold up the abolition of Section 21.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has again spoken so much sense that it leaves me little to add. I should warn him that in our previous day’s debate I was described as “irritatingly persuasive”, so I hope not to damage his case by supporting it.
There is a real issue here and it does need some serious probing. I am not suggesting that we retain Section 21, but noble Lords have raised at Second Reading and today in Committee, as I am sure others will raise again, the courts simply not being ready to take on the burden that is coming to them. There is no credible timescale to transform the clogged courts and tribunals system. However, my main reason for speaking is to put on record and advise the House that I attended a meeting—with the Minister and other noble Lords, some of whom are present today—with those responsible for the court digitisation, which has been held out as the kind of techno magic that will transform the speed of court processes.
This was illuminating, but it left attendees, a good number of whom have very considerable experience of our legal system, very doubtful about this still-evolving IT system. The view from the people I spoke to was that it would take at least five years to bed in.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 279 and 280 stand in the name of my friend, the noble and learned friend, Lord Etherton. I signed those amendments as well, not with a legal hat on but more with the hat of someone who has been there for the development of a large number of complex IT systems over the years, and has probably contributed to almost every mistake it is possible to make in doing that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, unfortunately cannot be here today, so I am going to make some observations that follow on nicely from what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just said. I refer the Committee to my register of interests. I am, in my own capacity and to a small extent, a landlord, but in Scotland. I am also trustee of a couple of trusts in Scotland that are renting properties out.
The problem was set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, at Second Reading. I am afraid that, because he is not here, I will use his words very briefly. He said:
“We all know that there will be many more contested possession proceedings by landlords following the enactment of the Bill and the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions. It would not be right to abolish no-fault evictions without adequate speed and resources for dealing with the increase in contested proceedings … The Government need to demonstrate that measures have been or will be put in place which will help to secure that court claims by landlords for possession of residential properties will be disposed of in a timely and efficient way”.—[Official Report, 4/2/25; cols. 623-24.]
The meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just referred took place on 11 March. There were half a dozen Cross-Bench people there. I am holding the 30-page presentation that was handed out. There were officials there from the Ministry of Justice, in particular from HM Courts & Tribunals Service, and from MHCLG; the Minister was there as well. It was an extremely interesting presentation, and there were two things that came out that I feel I should speak to the Committee about today. The first was about the size of the problem. There is a slide that scopes out the size of the IT system that is involved. This IT system exists today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is very familiar with the IT systems that support the court services, as he was responsible for a large number of them for some years, and he was very much the driver for the half a dozen of us who were there.
That IT system has separate subsystems for case management, hearings management, work allocation, user registration and fee payment—there are others as well. Noble Lords can see just how complex this IT system is. In each of the things I have just mentioned, there would of course be major changes required to the IT system that would need to go through development and be dealt with in a proper way.
After considering the size of the problem, which I certainly assess as pretty big, we went on to discuss their approach to the design and build of the new system. This was in a slide that was extremely clear, and they were pleased to report that the prototype stage had arrived. The prototype stage sounds very hopeful, but in fact this comes before the fifth of the six stages, which is “prepare for build”; the sixth stage is “build and test”. The prototype is literally that—something which comes at a pretty early stage in the development of the IT system. All that comes, of course, before user acceptance testing and actually training up people involved in the court system to use this complex system in an efficient manner. The acid question that was put to the people advising us on this was how long they thought it would take to get to the end of the “build and test” stage. The answer on 11 March was two years.
The people who were briefing us universally gave a very good impression indeed. I have met a lot of IT people, but they seemed to me very steady in every way and have clearly been through this a lot before, so I have no reason to doubt their two-year estimate for getting to the end of the IT build. In speaking to colleagues afterwards, I think they also felt that the people who were presenting it—who were, after all, the people who were actually doing the programming—were of a very high quality.
With no IT system, the presentation explains that there are 110,000 cases a year, and this is without any uplift in the number of cases that one would expect. The uplift referred to earlier in this debate, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in his Second Reading contribution, was 110,000 cases a year. Let us say that we had only a year and a half of it because things went on, but that would be 165,000 cases clogging up a system that is already under strain, producing delay and, because it is going into the county court system, affecting access to justice for the rest of the county court system as well, one assumes. The amendments that the noble and learned Lord prepared—and I was very much in consultation with him while he was doing it—were aimed at trying to prevent undesirable outcomes.
Can the Minister update us on the progress of the IT system that was presented to us on 11 March? Will she agree to meet further to discuss this issue after Committee?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in previous contributions to the Committee, I made the point that our objective should be to increase supply and simultaneously reduce demand. I think we are now facing a situation in which we are doing everything in our power to decrease supply. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, are all basically meritorious in their own way, but they are all trying to solve a problem that we foresee. It does not have to be thought about as something that may happen as a remote possibility: it is almost a certainty and therefore has to be addressed.
There are other things that I think the Government are doing that are decreasing supply. The prospect of a landlord entering into the relationship with a tenant is even further off-put by these measures in the uncertainty that they could be left with no income for very long periods of time and tenants could find themselves stranded if they cannot go to a court and have the thing settled.
I also raised with the Minister the ECHR implications. There is yet another matter that is arising: there are reports that the Government are effectively talking out of both sides of their mouth at once. Here they are telling us that we have to get rid of Section 21 as we do not want agreed-term tenancies; on the other hand, it appears that the Government are going to landlords and offering them up to five-year tenancies if they house asylum seekers. You cannot have it both ways. The Minister told me that you could not discriminate between one tenant and another, but in fact that is precisely what we are doing. We are introducing a new class of tenant—a tenant who is in a superior position to the ordinary tenants we have at the moment. There is a great deal of uncertainty around this. Common sense dictates that this matter of the courts has to be addressed, and the very fact that we are having to burden the courts with our legislation tells us that perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with this in the first place.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 279 and 280 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place today. I hoped to have added my name to them, but I think I got to the Public Bill Office after the Marshalled List had gone to print. These amendments, together with others in this group, address an issue that is central to the Bill: the capacity of the courts. I declare at the outset my interest as somebody who benefits from rental income from residential property, as set out in the register.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landlord of rental properties in Hampshire. I support all the amendments in this group. I fear that the Government may not support Amendment 283, even though it was in the original Bill that was presented when we were in Government.
I will focus on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which would require the Government to conduct a formal review of the Bill’s impact on the court system within two years of its enactment. This review, supported by the National Residential Landlords Association, would assess case volumes, the court’s ability to manage demand, the efficiency and timeliness of proceedings, and the administrative burden on the courts. It would require the Secretary of State to consult legal practitioners, court officials and other relevant experts to ensure that decisions are based on reliable evidence.
Crucially, this amendment does not seek to delay the abolition of Section 21. Instead, it would ensure that the Government monitor the impact of these changes and, if necessary, take action to address the extra pressures on the justice system.
With the abolition of Section 21 no-explanation repossessions, landlords will become more reliant on the courts when seeking to gain possession of a property using the legitimate grounds under the Section 8 process. However, as many other noble Lords have said, this shift raises serious concerns about the capacity of the justice system to handle the increased caseload. The Law Society notes:
“The bill in its current form, may lead to an increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used no-fault provisions will instead have to show good reason for eviction”.
The Housing Minister has said that the Government are working to ensure the courts are “ready” for the system replacing Section 21. As other noble Lords have said, they have given no indication on what this means in practice or how it will be achieved. The court system was already struggling. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has said, the Housing Minister told the Bill Committee in the Commons that
“the court system is on its knees”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 22/10/24; col. 9.]
Government data shows that the average time to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—the grounds-based route to possession—is over seven months. That is seven months in which a responsible landlord might be left unable to recover their property in cases of serious rent arrears or anti-social behaviour; seven months where neighbours may have to endure disruption; and seven months in which tenants who are genuinely in need of housing will not have access to the market because homes that should be available are instead tied up in legal delays. It is only right and fair that responsible landlords have confidence that the system will not leave them in limbo when they have legitimate grounds for possession.
Tenants also face major barriers to justice. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has said, close to a majority of the population of England and Wales do not have a housing legal aid provider in their local authority area.
Given all this, Richard Atkinson, the president of the Law Society, has rightly concluded that
“the bill will not be effective without further investment in the justice system. We urge the government to provide greater funding and more clarity to the enforcement provisions so that justice is accessible to renters and landlords alike”.
No mention is made in the impact assessment of what the extra costs of improving the Courts & Tribunals Service will be, or of implementing the new IT system that other noble Lords have met with the Minister to hear about. Does that mean that nothing extra will be spent on improving systems in the Courts & Tribunals Service?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I wish to ensure that there is an awareness within the context of these amendments of the current state of play. According to a briefing from Generation Rent, which I thank for the information, only a tiny minority of tenancies ever get anywhere near a court—currently, about 0.3% end in repossession in the court. While the courts are indeed very overcrowded and have a lot of cases coming before them, it is important to understand where in the hierarchy tenancies currently are.
In addition, the vast majority of tenants, the minute they receive a notice—whatever the notice is—tend to see the writing on the wall and leave, because there is such a strong power imbalance, and therefore it never makes it to court. Although I recognise that we are hearing about the situation when something reaches court, the likelihood of anything actually reaching court is, as we will discuss in further amendments later today, often very remote, from both sides of the argument.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness but, sadly, from practical experience, I think what she is saying is not necessarily the case.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will wind up on this group and give a little more detail on my Amendment 264. It is a straightforward amendment; I like to be straightforward. Based on the facts given by noble Lords in this debate, there is evidently a genuine concern about the capacity of the courts to deliver. All contributions have been well evidenced and—I will be quite frank—are worrying.
From our perspective, as was evidenced by the contribution from my noble friend Lady Grender, we support this legislation, we want ir to work and, for it to work, we know that the courts have to be efficient. If they are not, it could undermine the core purpose of the Bill, as was passionately said by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We know of, and understand, the issues regarding the courts. These have been well articulated in every contribution across the Committee, so I will not repeat them. However, many legitimate questions have been posed to which we need answers.
On Amendment 264, it is vital that court capacity is reviewed, and that this is enshrined in the Bill to make sure that it happens formally and can be scrutinised within two years. We feel that two years is probably enough, certainly to sort out the IT—as referenced by the noble Earl—and to feel whether we are moving on to an even keel after an initial transition period. I am sure that, as we go through the rest of the days in Committee, we will look at that transition period.
The amendment looks at all the key components for the effective working of the courts. It asks to look at access to justice. We must ensure that the system is accessible, affordable and understandable for all, regardless of a tenant’s background and circumstances. It is legitimate to ask the Government for their commitment to resourcing the courts and to have hard evidence about case volume, how many cases, and how long they are taking—the last aspect being very important for both landlords and tenants.
As has been mentioned, the current evidence is of the months ticking by, which is unfair to landlords. Their concerns in this instance are valid. Under the new grounds, if eviction is legitimate, it needs to happen quickly. Delaying things by months could put some landlords in financial jeopardy and tenants in real limbo and uncertainty. I am sure that any Secretary of State would want answers to these pertinent questions within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that all is working as intended, or, if not, in time to make some remediation, as the assessment will be based on real data. I am certain that the Government, too, are concerned about this and are doing everything they can to make sure that the courts are ready; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
However, we do not support in any way Amendment 283 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to delay the abolition of Section 21. The sooner the long-promised abolition of Section 21 happens, the better. Indeed, Amendments 279, 280 and 283, as well as, to a lesser extent, Amendment 69, would certainly result in delays in the Act coming into force. For this critical reason, we cannot support them.
However, this does not mean that we do not take this issue seriously; I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles. I expect full answers on the readiness of our courts to deal with these radical changes. The criticism and concerns regarding the courts have been known now for some considerable time. Work must have been done, so we would expect the Government now to have some hard answers.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all noble Lords who have spoken about concerns about court capacity to deal with the huge increase in loads that will come their way. This is not just a serious policy issue; it is an important legal one. Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees rights of access to justice within a reasonable time, and if those rights are delayed then that will impact also on landlords’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, which is about rights to property. I am afraid there is nothing in the ECHR memorandum, which I have with me, addressing the Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 points relating to delays to justice in the courts. That is an important issue that has to be addressed, and I cannot see how this sensible Amendment 264 can be denied. Incidentally, the amendment overlaps with Amendment 106, which we will consider later; for some reason, they have been put in different groups.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their amendments, and I thank the noble Lords Cromwell, Lord Empey, Lord Wolfson and Lord Northbrook, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their comments and for bringing the noble and learned Lord’s amendments before us.
I understand the concerns that Members have on this issue, which is why we engaged early on with noble Lords in advance of the Bill coming before this House. We have listened to noble Lords’ views and experience in this area. I appreciate that we may need to have further discussions.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I started working with noble Lords on the Bill some months ago to understand the concerns that they had. Where probing amendments have been tabled, I have attempted to answer in detail. On matters requiring factual answers, such as data that I did not have at my fingertips, I have responded either in writing and/or offered further meetings to noble Lords.
However, it was too late in the day when the party opposite recognised the dreadful housing crisis that it had led us into, which meant it was too late for it to finish legislation to deal with it. Today, we are faced with amendments seeking to remove core principles of the Bill that is trying to deal with it. If those come before us, I will have no option but to disagree with them. Some of those core principles were in the Bill of the party opposite when that sat before this House. This Government will take up the challenge of dealing with the issues with a degree of balance between landlords and renters and, I believe, will do a better job of it.
The amendments before the Committee today would all require the Government to make an assessment of the justice system as a result of these reforms and, in some cases, delay commencement of the reforms until certain conditions were fulfilled. Amendment 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which a county court is able to make possession orders for rented properties, and how such orders are enforced. That assessment will be published at such a such a time and in such a manner as the Lord Chancellor sees fit. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has also tabled Amendment 283, which, if made, would delay the commencement of these important reforms until the Lord Chancellor had carried out and published the proposed assessment and was satisfied that the court service had sufficient capacity.
The Government’s view is that the implementation of our tenancy reforms should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill said, be held back by an assessment of current working, especially one that is so broad and undefined. We have no intention of delaying these urgent reforms while we wait for an unnecessary assessment of the existing possession process. The proposed assessment will provide no new insight or benefit to interested parties. Compelling the courts and tribunals to undertake such an assessment would detract from their vital work to make sure that the courts are ready for our reforms.
Quarterly data on the operation of the court possession process for rented properties is already, and will continue to be, published by the Ministry of Justice. This is regularly reported and scrutinised. The published statistics include both the volumes and timeliness of possession orders and the enforcement of those orders. Court rules specify that possession claims requiring a hearing should be listed within four to eight weeks of the claim being issued. Landlord possession claims are taking an average of eight weeks—not seven months, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook—to progress from the issue of a claim to a possession order in the most recent quarter from October to December 2024.
Instead of publishing this unnecessary assessment, we will carry out our tenancy reforms as quickly as possible. I want to reassure the Committee that we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for the changes to court caseload and procedures which will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect. This includes investing in additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated. I hope that answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I therefore ask that those amendments are not pressed.
Amendment 205 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would require the Secretary of State to lay a Statement before Parliament setting out how the Government will ensure that the county courts are prepared for the impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill on possession cases. The Statement would need to be made within six months of the Bill being passed and assess the effect of the Bill on the volume of cases, the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings, and the resource requirements of the courts in future.
As I have said, I fully recognise noble Lords’ concerns that this Bill will impose an additional burden on the justice system and understand the concern of my honourable friend at the other end of the building about the court system. As already noted, I reassure the Committee that we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for changes to court caseload and procedures which will be required for our reforms and we are working with the MoJ and HMCTS to that effect.
To pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about resources, we are working together to agree how these reforms are implemented. This will include ensuring that the county court will have the capacity and resources it needs to adjust to any changes in possession caseloads—which will, of course, involve the assessment that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, referred to—and commitments to address the resources needed. Work is also progressing on updating rules and procedures in readiness for the implementation of the new legislation.
In the longer term, we expect our reforms to reduce the volume of court possession claims, as only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed. This will help offset any increased pressure on the courts resulting from our reforms in due course.
His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service is building an end-to-end digital service for resolving all possession claims in the county courts in England and Wales, to make processes more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants—a much-needed reform. Funding has been agreed and provided to enable the design and build of this new service, which is well under way and builds on the existing digitisation of the justice system.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said it had left him with the impression that this was five years away. That is not what the court service said and not my understanding of where we are with it. As I have explained, this is not a new system that is being built from scratch; it is a further module of an existing system.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, commented on the outlining of the size of the problem that our colleagues from HMCTS set out. That was the hold system that they are developing, with the approach to design and build being at prototype stage. I understand what he is saying, but the digitisation process is not the whole picture of what we are doing with our colleagues in the courts service. This service will offer an online route for making and responding to possession claims, filing documents and receiving updates and outcomes, offering improved user experience through guided journeys.
As we have heard, some noble Lords heard first-hand about the progress being made. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that the question was put, “How long will this take?” and colleagues replied, as I understand it, “Two years from March”. I thank him for those comments, but that is not the totality of the work we are doing with the courts service, so, while progress on that is really important to driving this forward for the future, we will be working with our friends in the courts service and supporting them in the interim. I therefore ask him not to press his amendment.
I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for Amendment 264, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impacts on the judicial system arising from the Renters’ Rights Bill within two years of the legislation being passed. The review would need to consider the effect of the Bill on the volume of cases, the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings and the resource and administrative burdens on the courts.
As I already outlined, I want to reassure the Committee that we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for changes to court caseloads and procedures. We are taking that issue very seriously. We will monitor the effects of these reforms on the justice system by closely engaging with the sector and analysing the comprehensive data that is already collected. It is not that we do not think it is necessary to analyse the data; it is more that we think committing to a formal review on the face of the Bill is unnecessary.
The points the noble Baroness made about justice delayed being justice denied are quite right. That is why we do not want to delay all this, including abolishing the Section 21 evictions that have caused so many problems. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but I want her to be assured that we believe that analysis of the impact of the Bill on the system is critical and important, and we will be doing that using the information that is already available.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does that mean, as I take from her words, that such monitoring and review will be an ongoing and rolling process from day one?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is completely correct. We need to make sure we are taking account of the impact on the system from the start. We believe that over time it will reduce the volume of cases going to the court service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out, not many cases end up in the courts system, but there are some that go down that route. We will be monitoring them from the outset.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
On that point, I have just gone online and it is still being quoted that there is a seven-month delay, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook said. If it becomes clear during the process leading to the implementation of the Bill that the courts cannot cope and it will have a severe impact on people’s lives—the lives of both landlords and tenants—will His Majesty’s Government be brave enough to slow down the implementation of this Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I hope I have already made clear, we do not want to slow down implementation. We think the reforms we are bringing forward are really important and very much overdue. We do not expect that it will have the impact the noble Baroness has just outlined, but we will continue to monitor it and we will support our friends in the courts service with whatever help they need to make sure the impact is mitigated.
I turn finally to Amendments 279 and 280, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on the Bill, particularly on the judicial impacts. It has been incredibly valuable to me to have that input. Amendment 280 would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord possession actions in respect of residential property are processed by the courts in no greater time, on average, than they were in the year before the first Covid-19 lockdown. In addition, Amendment 279 would delay the commencement of important reforms until this proposed assessment had been carried out.
As I have previously outlined, I recognise that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the county court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary. But we will not tie the implementation of these urgent reforms to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long.
As noted, the Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the county court possession process, and court rules specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. If the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says that that figure is still disputed, I am happy to get back to her on that.
Setting a target for the possession process as a gateway for the operation of other Bill provisions would not be meaningful. A key stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession. This is dependent on the actions of the landlord and is therefore outside the control of the courts service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date set out in the possession order, a landlord can choose whether to apply for a warrant immediately to enforce a possession order granted by the court, and whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court. We will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Justice on implementing these reforms. This includes ensuring that the county court has the resources it needs to adjust to any changes in case loads, and that the relevant rules and procedures are updated. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, requested a meeting. I am very happy to continue meeting on the progress of digitisation and the other interim steps that we are likely to take.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Will the Minister agree to write to us about the Home Office and place a copy in the Library? Additionally, the Minister said on the previous day in Committee that she did not want to see different classes of tenant. How is it possible to have this Bill on the statute book and at the same time have the proposed Serco arrangements in operation without creating two classes of tenant?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it is best to wait until I have the detail of the Serco arrangement before we debate that. As I said, I will give noble Lords a response in writing and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s encouraging remarks on improving capacity and resources, and on the digitisation process. However, the impact assessment—if I have read it correctly—says there was no extra expenditure on this. I am not quite sure how to square the circle on that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the courts service. The digitisation process is already under way and is already costed, and we are looking at other impacts. If the noble Lord’s view is that they are not clearly set out in the impact statement, I will come back to noble Lords on what they may be.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I just want to come back to the estimated five-year implementation period that the Minister responded to. That arose from conversations with people who have had a lifetime of professional involvement in legal processes, so I would not brush it aside too early. I have been on the sharp end of a number of these sorts of IT projects that get built. If you build anything, you always double the budget and double the time you are told it is going to take; anybody who has built anything knows that—I will not touch on R&R.
The Minister has told us a number of times that the Government are fully focused—a phrase that has been used a number of times. I do not wish to be discourteous, but it sounds like the Government are being fully optimistic, almost to the point of naivety, on this. These are probing amendments. There is a general agreement, including from the Government, that there really is a problem here that needs to be solved. There is no dispute about it being a problem. I urge that, before we get to Report, we need a crisp, specific, clear and credible statement about what exactly will be done to resource this properly, because our current court system is not a model of swiftness and efficiency, and it is hard to see how this will be magically transformed.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will follow on from that so the Minister can reply to both. I retain a certain fondness for my former department, and I know that the budget of the Ministry of Justice is extremely tight. I have not seen any scope in that budget for the expected increase in the courts’ workload that the Bill will generate. The Minister said she will work very closely with the MoJ, and I know that, when I was an MoJ Minister, that meant that people would work closely with me by telling me that I needed to spend money from my budget on what they wanted. Can I therefore take it that, when she says she will work very closely with the MoJ, what she actually means is that, if the MoJ needs money to do what the Bill requires, it will come from her budget?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I say that I too have been involved with a number of IT projects over the years, and I understand his scepticism. However, having listened to the excellent presentation, I agree with the comments that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made about the nature of the team that came to present to us, which was outstanding in the straightforward way it presented to us both the challenges it faced and the success it had had in taking the project forward so far. We are making good progress on that project and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, the benefit of bringing Bills before this House is that we get the outside experience that people bring. But we will see in due time whether it will move forward as quickly as we hope. I do not think that is overly optimistic—we have had a presentation from the team that is doing the work.
I understand the comments on funding, but the way that our Government have set about working across departments to deliver objectives has been incredibly productive so far. We are working very well across government, led by the team in the Cabinet Office, and I hope that means that we will not have this shunting around of costs but will all sit down and decide what we need to prioritise. It all depends on the spending review, and this would be a lot easier if we had not been left with a £22 billion black hole.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I am sorry to put something else to the Minister, and I am very grateful to her for the offer of a meeting. I have here the latest possession statistics, which I printed off beforehand, so I thought I would merely inform the Committee what they say: claims to order is currently eight weeks, but claims to repossessions is 25 weeks. So everyone was saying something correct, but in fact they were looking at different bits of the statistics. But, of course, claims to repossessions is what a landlord would be thinking about. You cannot start the claim until various amounts of time have passed, so actually the median 25 weeks for claims to repossessions is quite a long time. Going on from that, I turn to item 7, on regional possession claims. In fact, there are quite big differences between the regions, and there are some regions where claims are quite slow.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for clarifying that point. Indeed, I was talking about the claims to order median timeliness being eight weeks. It is difficult to take measures from different places—there are lies, damned lies and statistics, as we all know—but, as I mentioned, in the longer term we expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of possession claims. That is why the monitoring that I set out in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is really important, so that we can see where this is taking us. We expect that only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed, and that should, over time, reduce the volumes overall.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions made during this debate and the amendments we have discussed, particularly those proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for speaking to them with such in-depth knowledge, which was much appreciated. The whole debate underscores shared concerns across the Committee about the capacity of our courts to effectively implement the Bill.
As I made clear throughout the previous days in Committee, the ambition to reform the private rented sector is commendable, yet without a robust and adequately resourced court system, these reforms risk being totally undermined. Amendments 283 and 69 in my name would create a foundational aim to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place before significant changes are enacted, thereby safeguarding the interests of both tenants and landlords.
The Minister remarked on the first day of Committee and has continued to say that the Government are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This assessment is intended to identify the additional burdens on the system arising from the new policies in the Bill and to ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increases in workload. This commitment is welcomed, but we need to know how long this justice impact test will take to complete. Will it be ready before the Bill progresses through Parliament? Given the significant implications for the court system, it is imperative that this assessment is thorough and timely and that the Bill is impacted only once we know the court system is ready for these changes.
The capacity of our courts is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the success of this legislation. As we have discussed, delays in the court process are not merely procedural; they have a real-world consequence for tenants and landlords alike. I urge the Minister to expediate the impact test and to ensure its findings are fully considered before any further steps are taken. I reiterate the importance of aligning the ambition of the Bill with the practical realities of our court system. The amendments before us provide a prudent approach to achieving this balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continuing our discussions on how best to deliver. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this point.
Baroness Coffey
“Repossession of homes during school holidays(1) The court may only make an order for possession of a dwelling which houses children of school age during the school holidays.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations define the period of school holidays under subsection (1) on an annual basis.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 70 is fundamentally to help children. We should recognise that certain changes have made it far more profitable for landlords to change long-term family-home lets to homes in multiple occupation or sometimes, depending on location, to holiday lets. Losing family homes in rural locations from both the private and social housing sectors is a real issue, particularly when one considers that median salaries tend to be considerably lower than in towns and cities.
I was inspired to put forward this amendment after a discussion with a landlord in Suffolk about various reforms being considered by this House that would likely reduce the availability of rented accommodation for families, particularly in rural areas. This landlord told me of one change that he would put into law if he had the opportunity—a practice he undertakes himself today—and that is making sure that any changes in tenancy arrangements for properties occupied by families happen only during the school summer holidays. My amendment seeks to ensure that any such eviction could happen only during a school holiday.
I understand that it is the Government’s intention to reduce evictions, particularly no-fault evictions; however, they do accept that a landlord may need to require such actions. That said, disruption of a child’s education through absolutely no fault of their own can have a real impact on their life in both the short and long term.
For what it is worth, I also think that the situation is more likely to be acute for children living in rural areas. Often, people displaced from accommodation in rural areas end up having to move considerable distances to much more urban conurbations, which would likely require a change of school, whether that be at primary or secondary age. My amendment would at least limit this potential disruption to the child’s life to be only during school holidays, giving parents and the child time to find a new school or to make alternative transport arrangements if necessary. I appreciate that we are still in Committee, so I am floating this idea to consider what we can do to help children in these challenging moments in their family’s life. I would be grateful if I could meet the Minister to discuss this issue further. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I do not doubt the genuine compassion and sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but I feel there is a real incongruity about the current position of His Majesty’s Official Opposition to favour landlords and make evictions quicker and easier. The message to tenants via this amendment is, “Your unwanted evictions will take place only in the school holidays, so on 21 December rather than earlier in December”. I genuinely feel that it would be unworkable and that circumstances differ. I could actually argue the opposite: I would rather my children were safe in school while I negotiated trying to find where we were to live. I just do not think we can say that one size fits all on this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 70 before the Committee today. It is a thoughtful and considered probing amendment that rightly recognises the significant impact that housing stability can have on a child’s education. During the pandemic, our children and grandchildren suffered greatly. Schools were closed, youth clubs shut down and extracurricular activities ground to a halt. The disruption left many young people adrift at a crucial stage of their development, and only now are we beginning to understand the effects. It is therefore incumbent on us all to support and uplift the next generation. However, the Government must ensure that the burden does not fall disproportionately on individual landlords. It is not, and should not be, their moral obligation to serve as the final safety net for vulnerable families. That responsibility lies with us—with the state, with local authorities and with society.
Owning a property does not automatically confer great wealth. It does not equip an individual to shoulder the complex needs of a struggling family. The Government must tread carefully to ensure that their actions do not drive up costs in this sector, which fall most heavily and disproportionately on low-income families and the most vulnerable members of our society. A sustainable housing market depends on both tenant security and landlords’ confidence. This is a very tough balance to strike, but I believe that the onus is on us all to strike it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of a property that houses school-aged children only during school holidays, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it. However, I gently point out that at the latest count, we have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, a situation driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation paid by her Government. Therefore, while we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, I think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this Committee with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation of 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. I heard this morning of a three year-old who has been homeless for his entire life—astonishing.
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am going to talk about the practicality of delivering it. It would likely mean that, where possession has been sought, the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it is the school holidays or not, before scheduling a hearing. Not only would this create additional work for the courts—we have just spent quite some time debating the pressure the courts are already under—it could cause delays for landlords in obtaining possession orders. That is an issue the Opposition have taken great interest in. For example, a landlord’s case could be next in line to be heard, but, because it is the beginning of the school summer holidays, the hearing would be delayed for six weeks.
Furthermore, although provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, it would be an onerous task. School holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors; they can even vary within an individual area. My grandchildren live at the same address but go to different schools and have different holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties.
While it is absolutely right that tenants enjoy a greater level of security in their homes, we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to seek to take their property back. It would not be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays to the possession process.
Our reforms give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. That is why we are introducing the many protections for tenants, such as banning Section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them to move into or sell the property. However, that must be balanced with the needs of landlords, who must enjoy those robust grounds we have already spoken about. Judges already have some discretion when deciding the date on which a tenant should give up possession. Even if an outright possession order is made, pursuant to a Section 21 notice or on a mandatory ground, the date for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show that this would cause exceptional hardship.
As well as it being impractical, there is also a principled argument against this amendment. Being evicted will almost always be a significant upheaval for tenants—I accept that—particularly for those with children, so I understand the intent behind it. However, it would not necessarily—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out—always be easier for parents to deal with a possession order or eviction during the school holidays. During termtime, parents may have significantly fewer caring responsibilities, particularly if their children are younger. Therefore, many parents find the school holidays a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up that school holiday with the necessities of moving, rather than doing activities with the children. So it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It is for these reasons, both practical and principled, that I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking to this amendment. I am slightly surprised to hear a Member of this House being accused of having some front, based on previous government policy. I recognise this is a political debate, but I am talking about children and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be considered in any consideration of legislation when it comes to this.
There has also been a kind of city and urban perspective on where children go to school; there has not been a realisation of quite how far some children in the countryside have to travel. If you are moved from, say, the middle of coastal Suffolk to Lowestoft, there is no way you could continue going to your school without considerable upheaval to your parents’ lives, and indeed at great expense.
I am conscious of the limitations being put on landlords. I had hoped to be able to speak to the Minister in more detail, but I have heard what she said and will consider potentially speaking to her noble friends in the Department for Education. I beg to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies, I neglected to say that I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to this Clause in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, probes the Government’s reasons for increasing the notice period for rent increases from one month to two months.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments, I will respond to the Minister’s comment. On this side of the House, we want to see a successful, thriving private rental market which gives everyone the opportunity to have a stable and secure home. However, as we have seen in Scotland, rental reform can have a deleterious impact on the availability of rental homes, and increase pricing. It is our concern that some of the reforms being proposed may harm tenants and the market. It is perfectly reasonable for us to have different views on what the potential reforms may or may not do, but let us be absolutely clear that, on this side of the House, we want successful tenanted private rentals. The Committee should have no doubt about that.
I turn to Amendments 72, 73, 74 and 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The group addresses the matter of notice periods. Amendments 72, 73 and 74 are all probing amendments and seek to question the purpose of increasing the notice periods for rent increases and why the retention of one month is not kept. The Government have failed to sufficiently explain why the Bill looks to change the minimum period for notice of a rent increase from one month for assured periodic tenancies, particularly as landlords will now be able to increase rent only once a year, which we support.
In that case, a rent increase could reasonably be anticipated by the tenant. It should also reflect the current market conditions and economic factors such as interest rates, particularly with the increased powers to challenge by the tribunal. Increasing the notice period means that those data points are more out of date. Surely the Government would wish for rent increases that reflect current market and economic conditions, and to reduce the likelihood of tribunals. This change will undoubtedly have significant implications for landlords and the rental market more broadly. On a personal level, many landlords rely on the funds they intend to retrieve from an increase in rent payments to meet loan repayments and other financial obligations.
It is important that all noble Lords consider this change in the wider context of this Bill and the other factors which landlords will have to tackle. Changing notice periods for rent increases is just one obstacle that landlords will have to address. Others include the annual rent increase, which tenants will be able to challenge through First-tier Tribunals, which will subject landlords to greater risk of court backlogs. These changes may result in increased administrative burdens for landlords, brought about by the use of Section 13 notices for rent increases and the two-month notice period.
The ultimate issue with the rental market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet the demand. We must look not only to incentivise landlords to stay in the market but to encourage new entrants. It is vital that the Government avoid introducing unnecessary measures that create a hostile market.
The proposed changes to the notice period will, with many other new measures, cumulatively create significant consequences for landlords across the country. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have consulted with landlords on the impact of these measures, and will they publish the findings from this consultation? If not, do they intend to do so? Similarly, will the Minister confirm whether the Government have conducted, or intend to conduct, an impact assessment on the changes to the notice period for rent increases?
Amendment 81, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to question the Government’s reasons for having one-month notice periods for rent increases in the low-cost tenancy sector, despite the fact that those who are not in those tenancies are entitled to two. For clarity, we are not decreeing that it should not be one month; we are asking why there is the difference and seeking to understand the logic behind it. I look to the Minister to explain exactly why someone in a low-cost tenancy would get less notice of a rent increase compared with someone renting in the open market, such as those on assured periodic tenancies. Should not those who are the poorest in our society require greater notice, particularly given the importance of financial planning?
I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords on this group of amendments and to the Minister providing clarification on the concerns I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I find these amendments very curious. The whole principle of the private rented sector is that it is a capitalist operation; it is an operation which has costs and revenue. The revenue comes from rent. Obviously, rents must be very carefully determined. As to whether it is one month or two, that seems to me of little account. Basically, what tenants need to know is that rents are likely to increase by some measure which is generally agreed. In the private rented sector, this is normally the retail prices index—the RPI, as opposed to the CPI. If there is not a return on the investment, the investment will not continue to exist. Nobody can afford to let properties if there is no return on the property. The question, of course, is: what should the return be?
There are two very important factors to think of. The first is the gross return, the gross rent, as a percentage of the market value of the property, and the question of what percentage it should be. I have produced a table which shows the different levels of rent for different values of property, but, of course, that is not the only factor, because one has to remember that the rent charged is gross before the cost of maintenance, and maintenance is hugely important. The solution to having a good private rented sector is proper maintenance and, indeed, improvement through modernisation maintenance. It may be that you put in a more economic burner to heat the house—they vary a lot, and later ones are much more efficient, but that is an expenditure. You have to get a balance there.
I suggest that very often, about a third of the rent, on average, will go on the maintenance—keeping up to date—and administration of properties. If we said, for example, that a 3% return on capital was a reasonable level for the rent to be set at, that might end up at a net 2%, which is probably about what equities yield at the moment. We must see that.
Then comes a very important point, which we shall no doubt be discussing later: the affordability of rents for tenants. The Government’s guidance has for a long time been that rents should not be more than 30% of household income. Therefore, that calculation should be made. If somebody is renting a property, they should bear in mind that that is the Government’s advice as to the amount that they can afford to pay, other things being equal. Equally, the landlord letting the property will also have to take into account whether or not the prospective tenant can afford their property. Again, it is essential that if you set a rent, you know the household income, to see whether it reaches the affordability stakes.
These are important and complicated matters, but they are crucial to the private rented sector. My worry about the Bill is that half the time the Government do not seem to understand the private rented sector. It is a business enterprise like many other business enterprises. It is not particularly virtuous or unvirtuous, but I wish I could feel that the Government, in fiddling around with it all, were trying to make it work in a practical manner for investors and those receiving the benefit of the investment; that is, the product. There is no real difference between a house that you rent and a product that you buy in a shop. It is part of how the system operates, how civilisation operates. The Government are very muddled in their thinking on this. I would have liked to have got rid of the Gove Bill, which also was ill considered and ill conceived, lacking in understanding of the real world.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we have several groups of amendments that talk about rent, money and finances, so before commenting specifically on this amendment, I want to have a little rant regarding landlord finances. The narrative is that the majority of landlords are in a terrible financial position. What evidence do we actually have for that? It is certainly not borne out by my anecdotal evidence and could be conceived as scaremongering, because my understanding is that being a landlord is, and will remain, profitable.
The idea that, to remain sustainable, landlords must be able to pass the entirety of any increased business cost and risk on to the tenant through a rent increase is, frankly, ridiculous. There is no other business model that operates in this way, and it does not add up when we look at the sum of the data that we have. The English Private Landlord Survey said that the median income of landlords, including rental properties, is around £52,000. According to the Shelter/YouGov survey of private landlords, rental income is largely additional for landlords: 50% of landlords say that they do not rely on rental income to cover living expenses.
I note that in any investments that I have made, there is a very cleverly worded phrase at the bottom: “Investments can go down as well as up”—except if you are a landlord, it would seem; even more so as you are left with a capital asset that, in this country, largely increases in value. That is my rant. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, were in her place, she would probably be quite proud of me for it.
I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding notice periods for rent increases. When the Bill was introduced in the Commons it proposed a standard one-month period. The Government’s decision to extend this to two months represents a welcome improvement that better balances the interests of landlords and tenants. This evolution demonstrates a willingness to listen and to respond to concerns about tenant security, for which I sincerely thank the Minister and her team.
Amendment 73 seeks to revert the notice period to just one month and Amendment 81 questions the differential treatment between standard and low-cost tenancies. These amendments, particularly Amendment 81, raise fair questions, which I too would like an answer to, as I have not been able to find a reason for that differentiation. A two-month notice period for rent increases represents a reasonable middle ground that acknowledges landlords’ legitimate need to adjust rents while giving tenants adequate time to prepare financially.
For many working families, a rent increase actually requires careful budgeting. I have not got the figures to hand but we know that a significant number—into the many thousands—of moves and evictions last year were due to the inability of the tenant to pay the new rent rise. One month is simply inefficient to work a decision to relocate and make those adjustments.
I commend the Government for finding a balanced approach. This middle ground solution may not be perfect from any single perspective, but it demonstrates what good legislation can achieve when all voices are genuinely heard during the parliamentary process. With these factors in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to notice periods for rent increases, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving Amendment 72.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his comments about the balance between landlord and tenant. We are aiming to get that balance in this Bill. He is right to point to the ratio of rent to income, but that is why tenants need longer to consider the impact on their family budget. Increasingly, the proportion of income that is taken up by rent is going up and up, particularly in certain parts of the country, making it very difficult for tenants to manage increases at short notice and without adequate notice to plan their family budgets.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about consultation with landlords on the impact of rent increases. Because of a question during the debate on a previous day, I undertook to give a written response on the consultation that has been carried out before and during the course of this Bill. I will provide that response in writing to noble Lords; it is being prepared at the moment, and I will get back to them with a summary of that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments. She is quite right to refer to issues of rental income and capital assets. As I have said many times, we must make this fair for everybody, and make sure that everybody gets what they want. Landlords want a tenant who will look after the property and pay their rent, and tenants want a landlord who will make sure the property is available, looked after and in good condition—that is what we are all after.
Amendment 72 would reduce the amount of notice of a rent increase that a landlord will have to give a tenant from two months to a period equal to a rental period. For example, where the rent is paid monthly, this would reduce the notice period from two months to one month. I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, that these are probing amendments.
Together with Amendment 72, Amendment 74 would remove the requirement for landlords to serve a rent increase notice two months before the rent increase comes into effect. We do not agree with this position. The Renters’ Rights Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. This includes by requiring landlords to give two months’ notice of a change, rather than one. This was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out, the result of debates in the other place and of lobbying from a number of groups that have been speaking to us. This will ensure that tenants who may struggle to pay a rent increase will have time to consider their options, seek advice and, where necessary, take steps to challenge the rent increase at a tribunal.
Receiving a rent increase can be distressing for many tenants. We want to give tenants time to reassess their budgets and consider their options. It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, do not agree that tenants should have this protection.
Amendment 73 seeks to decrease in the Bill the notice period for a landlord to serve a rent increase from two months to one month. Similarly to Amendment 72, we do not agree with this position. A two-month notice period will give tenants time to review their budgets before the rent increase takes effect and to take advice, if necessary or appropriate, from advice agencies such as Citizens Advice.
It is regrettable that the Opposition have tabled this amendment, because they supported this position on the matter. Their original White Paper, in 2022, promised to
“increase the minimum notice landlords must provide of any change in rent to two months”.
It is disappointing that they have changed their minds on this, and now wish for tenants to have less time to consider their options when receiving a rent increase.
Amendment 81 seeks to increase from one month to two months the amount of notice of a rent increase that landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies need to provide. Social landlords that fall under a new definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy in the Bill will be exempted from most of the changes the Bill makes to rent increases. This means that landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies will be permitted to increase the rent via the Section 13 process at any point in the first 52 weeks of a tenancy, and then once every 52 weeks thereafter, and must give at least one month’s notice. The new amount may take effect after this notice period if it is not challenged by the tenant in the tribunal. These landlords will still be able to use review clauses within a tenancy to increase the rent, as they can at present.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to conclude our discussion on this group of amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. The Bill is a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation, and this group has sought to address the issue of notice period for rent increases. I still question in my own mind why low-rent tenants should be treated differently from those in the private rented sector. I appreciate that the Minister has said she will write to us on the various consultations, which addresses some of the issues I have raised. In particular, the point for us is an understanding of the need to go to two months. I also raise the clear understanding of how the whole sector functions and the practical consequences of operating in it, which are some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised.
Savills, a leading authority in the sector, has warned that these reforms may deter investment in the private rented sector. It raises concerns about increased administrative overhead, reduced flexibility and potential delays to rent adjustments. Similarly, the National Residential Landlords Association has been vocal about the unintended consequences of these measures, warning that more regulation without proportional support risks undermining the viability of the sector. To address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised, it is not an issue of whether a landlord may or may not be able to afford the impact of this. It may be that they decide their investment is better placed elsewhere and they sell the property or do something else with it, therefore making it no longer available to the private rental sector. The issue that we face is whether this will harm the private rental sector.
These are not fringe voices that talk about this. They represent the heart of the industry, the landlords who provide the homes that tenants live in, so I ask the Minister again: what consultation has been undertaken? I appreciate that she will come back to us on this, but will the Government publish those findings? If that consultation has not yet taken place, will the Minister confirm when it will happen and whether it will inform the final shape of the Bill? Furthermore, have the Government conducted a formal impact assessment on the changes to rent notice periods? If so, when will it be made available to the House? If not, how can we legislate in good conscience without seeing the projected outcomes of these?
I return to the broader context, which we must not lose sight of. The fundamental issue facing the rental housing market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet demand. If we make it more difficult for landlords, particularly smaller ones who make up a significant share of the sector, we risk worsening the very crisis we are trying to address—a situation we have already seen demonstrated in Scotland. We support measures that improve fairness and predictability for tenants. If the outcome of the Bill is a smaller, more risk-averse rental market with fewer homes available at higher rents, we will have failed in our aims.
In closing, I reiterate the importance of these probing amendments. They are not about resisting reform; they are about getting it right. We have asked responsible questions and the Committee deserves answers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, not only to clarify the Government’s thinking but to offer assurance that these concerns are taken seriously, that evidence will guide policy and that fairness will be applied consistently across the sector. The success of the legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment questions the Government's reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord from agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the Tribunal under Section 14.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in my response to all amendments in this group, I will be guided by a principle of stability and fairness—fairness for both tenants and landlords. This is not a debate about unchecked gain, and nor should it result in the erosion of property rights. It is about balance, responsibility and securing a system that works for everyone.
Amendment 75 in my name probes the Government’s reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the tribunal. Just consider this scenario: the tribunal makes a determination, but then the landlord embarks on a renovation, which includes new appliances and upgrades throughout the property. Under this legislation, even if a tenant voluntarily wishes to pay a higher rent to reflect improvements made to the property, they would be prohibited from doing so. Two consenting adults, tenant and landlord, may well agree that the enhanced value of the home warrants a modest increase in rent. A mutual agreement will exist and yet the Bill would override that agreement. Why should the Government intervene to prevent it? That is one example, but it is, in truth, superfluous to the broader point I wish to make. If a mutual will exists—if two adults come to an agreement, regardless of whether we personally deem their reasons rational—why should any Government say no? Why should this Bill override that choice? We must be careful not to legislate away agency in the pursuit of protection, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Amendment 78 in my name seeks to prevent the Secretary of State expanding the definition of low-cost tenancy by regulation. This definition is important: it is not a technicality but fundamental. It determines not only how a property is treated under the law but how the relationship between the tenant and the landlord is structured. I understand that this is a significant power. Does the Minister agree? Anyone familiar with detail in the implications of this Bill will surely recognise that the power of a Minister to alter the foundations of an existing contract is unacceptable. Therefore, can the Minister commit to removing this regulatory power ahead of Report? If not, can she please set out in writing why she believes the Government should be afforded this power?
Finally, Amendment 86, in my name, probes the Government’s reasons for allowing a six-month period in which an application may be made to the tribunal under the newly constructed Section 14(A1). Six months could lead to a significant increase in claims being directed towards an already overburdened tribunal service. Have the Government properly considered multiple timescales and modelled the impact each would have on the tribunal system? If this vital work has been overlooked, will the Minister commit to reviewing the impact of the chosen timescale on the total claims and return to the Dispatch Box with this at a later time? This is not an unreasonable request, and I hope the Minister agrees.
Many of the amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s thinking and understand how they have arrived at the current text of the Bill. Unsurprisingly, given the importance of these matters, this group contains numerous amendments; I hope the Minister listens carefully to the views expressed across the Committee and is not too ready to dismiss them all in her reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 in my name. Each relates to the potential unintended consequences of Clause 7 for registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support.
Before turning to my amendments, I express my strong support for the Government’s ambition to give greater rights and protections to people renting their home. Since the previous Conservative Government first promised to end no-fault evictions in 2019, almost a million renters have received a Section 21 eviction, which is a leading cause of homelessness. It is right that the Government have acted decisively to end this unacceptable situation for good.
While most of the Bill is focused on reforming the private rented sector, some reforms will affect housing associations because the majority of homes that they provide use assured tenancies. This includes housing for people on low incomes, people needing high levels of support, people in crisis and people in need of short-term and emergency accommodation.
I understand that significant progress has been made to amend the Bill to negate any unintended consequences for social landlords. This has been strongly welcomed by the National Housing Federation and others that support this legislation. There have been welcome changes to ground 1B and ground 6, as well as the introduction of ground 6ZA, which will allow social landlords to gain access to properties both to meet housing need and to deliver essential redevelopment and improvement works. However, housing associations would still very much like to see further clarity in the Bill on proposed changes to the process for rent increases.
Housing associations are not-for-profit social landlords: they invest any income back into the development and maintenance of the homes they provide and into supporting residents and communities. To maintain fairness for tenants, to ensure administrative efficiency and alignment with benefits and utility rates increases, and to provide business certainty for repairs, maintenance and services, housing associations increase all tenants’ rent on the same day, usually in April. The Bill helpfully acknowledges this and attempts to provide a mechanism by which social landlords can still administer annual rent increases in the form of contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices.
Retaining registered providers’ ability to use clauses in tenancy agreements to increase rents is positive, as it provides them with a practical method for increasing rents on the same day for all tenants. The loss of this rent-harmonisation mechanism would have been a significant disruption—and, indeed, unnecessary, given how heavily regulated this sector is compared with the private rented sector.
However, the ability to use contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices could be clearer than is stated in the Bill currently. The Explanatory Notes clarify that contractual clause increases can be used, but the Bill says:
“For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy … the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice”.
It goes on. This reflects the wording applying to PRS tenancies, where the word “may” is used in a mandatory sense, as the only way that the landlord can increase the rent is through the process in Section 13 of the 1988 Act. In contrast, where it applies to relevant registered provider tenancies, “may” is used in a permissive sense: the landlord can use a Section 13A notice, but they also have the option to increase by a clause in the tenancy agreement.
The Bill provides for this method of increase by agreement between the landlord and the tenant. However, it does not make it clear whether each increase must be agreed or whether a mechanism for increase in the tenancy agreement covers all increases.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 87 in my name proposes that the Government adopt a screening procedure for rent appeals. It draws on and is prompted by current Scottish practice. The approach works well there and could make a substantial contribution to addressing the growing pressure on court capacity, which we have been discussing.
My amendment does not, in any way, reduce the right of tenants to appeal against a rent increase. I am not sure that it even reduces the incentive to appeal on the off chance, but it certainly reduces the likelihood that the courts will be overwhelmed by appeals and, in particular, appeals that do not succeed and therefore swamp the courts, to the detriment of important and merit-worthy cases.
Under the Government’s current proposals, tenants will enjoy a number of new and important rights: rents cannot be increased as often as at present, for example, and the notice period is increased. Most importantly in the context of this group of amendments, all tenants who wish to challenge what they see as an excessive rent increase have access to an independent tribunal. The tribunal cannot propose an increase that is any higher than the one initially proposed by the landlord; it can endorse the landlord’s proposal, in effect, or rule that a lower rent should be charged. Obviously, these changes will be of great assistance to tenants whose landlords are proposing major increases that are out of line with inflation or the market.
The problem is that, from most tenants’ point of view, appealing against an increase becomes something of a no-brainer. Why on earth would you not? What would you lose? At worst, you get a delay in the date when the increase takes effect. In that situation, the courts are bound to be faced with a tsunami of appeals with which they cannot possibly cope.
As many noble Lords are aware, Scotland reformed its rental legislation quite recently and it therefore provides us with useful indications of how contemporary rental markets respond to various types of change. Some Scottish developments are not very encouraging, as we have heard: there seems to be an ongoing decline in the number of rental properties and a sharp fall in the construction of properties for rent. However, one aspect of the current Scottish regime seems extremely sensible and successful. It does not reduce Scottish tenants’ rights but it does protect their court system.
The first stage in an appeal against a proposed rent increase goes to Rent Service Scotland. Apparently, it takes Rent Service Scotland, on average, just five days to respond. In almost every case, things stop there; very few cases then go on to a tribunal hearing.
The National Residential Landlords Association obtained information under a freedom of information request, which showed that, in the four months from April to July 2024, 928 applications were made to Rent Service Scotland to appeal a proposed rent increase. While there do not seem to be any summary statistics available that show exactly how numbers have evolved and changed over time, the Scottish tribunal is certainly not dealing with anything approaching that number. In fact, only about 30 decisions relating to rent increases were published between August 2024 and March 2025. The full 2023-24 Scottish tribunals report also shows that, while private rental sector cases were the large majority of property cases, they were overwhelmingly to do with evictions, deposits and repairs and not rent appeals.
Obviously, the Scottish situation is very different from ours, notably in adopting rent caps, but it is also obvious that that system is effective in giving tenants and landlords very quick feedback rather than months in limbo. It is also obvious, given the volume of appeals, that without this system the Scottish tribunal would be spending a lot of time and resource on a very large number of cases that were, in effect, a waste of its time.
It would be very easy for us to introduce a similar first-stage process in England. There is a large amount of expertise on rents outside the tribunals and courts. The Valuation Office Agency already gives the Government the valuations and property advice they need to support taxation and benefits. Rent officers set rents for the remaining group of protected tenancies. So, all the basic infrastructure we need is in place.
My amendment therefore proposes that all appeals against rent increases should go in the first instance to the Valuation Office Agency and progress to the First-tier Tribunal only if there is a clear case to answer. Obviously, if the Government chose to embrace the general idea, as I very much hope they will, the details would be in their hands—this is a probing amendment.
To see how important such a screening process could be in protecting our court system from near-complete collapse, it is worth doing a little bit of back-of-the-envelope arithmetic. If appeal rates from private sector tenants in England were at the same level as we currently see in Scotland and they all proceeded to the tribunal, we would end up in England with over 40,000 cases a year. That compares with 909 rent increase cases heard in the year 2023-24. We would be looking at an increase that is more than fortyfold, or 4,000%. As we have heard from noble Lords, it can already take months for the First-tier Tribunal to rule, so how can it possibly respond to this sort of increase? Of course, under the Bill’s provisions, the longer the delays, the greater the incentive is to appeal, so I am afraid that fortyfold might just be the start.
It is no wonder that even very strong supporters of the Bill, such as the Local Government Association, are expressing concerns about the potential impact of the new appeal rights on the capacity of the First-tier Tribunal to make decisions in a timely fashion. This timeliness matters not just because of the direct impact on changes in rents but because our judicial system also needs to deal with other property issues, including anti-social behaviour. It is worth emphasising that anti-social behaviour is not just an issue for landlords; it is at least as much of an issue for surrounding residents, many of whom will be tenants. If you live next to a property which is being used for intensive drug dealing, it is not much consolation to be told that this occurs only with a tiny minority of properties.
We already have very long delays in the court system, as other Lords have pointed out. Those delays seem to be growing and not reducing and we as a Chamber must, for the sake of tenants just as much as landlords, take the potential impact on the courts into account in scrutinising the Bill.
I therefore urge the Government to consider following and learning from the Scottish example and introducing a first-stage screening of rent appeals outside the court system. Is the Minister willing to meet me to discuss that suggestion?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 88, 91, 94, 97, 100 and 101 appear in this group. Before I speak to the individual amendments, my general observation is that I do not have great enthusiasm about several of them, but they have been put to me and I thought it necessary to have them aired in this Committee.
Amendment 88 would enable landlords to claim costs against the tenant when the landlord succeeded after the tribunal confirmed the rent increase. This follows the normal rule in front of all tribunals and courts in our land of costs following the event, the event being who won the dispute, and the costs therefore have to be picked up by the loser. Having said that, I have a reservation about this amendment, because it could be a deterrent against tenants challenging an increase in rent, which is undesirable.
In speaking to Amendment 91, I will speak also to Amendments 94, 97 and 100. All these amendments seek to establish that the increase in rent should be calculated from the expiry of the landlord’s notice for the increase rather than the date of the tribunal’s decision. I tabled this amendment because there is quite a noticeable delay in decisions of tribunals, which means the landlord does not get his increase in rent until several months later.
Amendment 101 moves to a different subject: that the rent payable on the decision of the tribunal should be paid in equal monthly instalments within six months of the tribunal’s determination—that speaks for itself.
I am just looking at my list of amendments to speak to and I think I have got there; I have completed my comments on all of them. I say again that I do not speak to them with great enthusiasm. I spoke with great enthusiasm on Thursday in supporting Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my own Amendments 165 and 166. Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for these amendments has not so far permeated to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I hope that they will do later.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise with huge enthusiasm for my amendments. Amendment 90 in this group relates to Amendment 89 in the following group, so I will speak just once. I have been told to call them probing amendments; really, I would like to push them to a vote. In fact, I would like the Minister to accept them because I think they are very good. They are similar to probing amendments put down by my colleague Carla Denyer in the other place and aim to ensure that tenants have a way of benefiting from energy efficiency improvements where the Government have given landlords the money to make them.
I would like the Minister to think about who profits from the government subsidy. Are the Government interested only in increasing the profits of landlords or should tenants benefit as well? Triple-glazed windows and wall insulation mean lower energy bills for the tenant, but that makes absolutely no difference to them if the saving is cancelled out by higher rents.
Take, for example, this case study provided by Generation Rent: Maya lives with her husband and children in a home they rent from a private landlord. They had a lot of energy efficiency work done, which was paid for by a government grant. They were eligible for it because they received benefits. However, Maya came to Citizens Advice for help when the landlord asked for a £500 rent increase after her family had been through all the disruption of getting their home upgraded. You can imagine the dust, the dirt, the noise and the general disruption of having workers around all the time.
This increase would have left Maya’s family facing a £900 shortfall between their local housing allowance and their rent, making it absolutely unaffordable for them to stay in their home. Maya tried to negotiate the rent with the landlord but has now been issued with a Section 21 eviction notice. Maya and her husband believe that now the property is in an improved condition, thanks to the grant funding they secured, the landlord wants to find more affluent tenants who will pay a higher rent.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the private rented sector, with residential lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
I have tabled Amendments 96, 98, 99, 103 and 104 to Clause 8, in which the Government seek to create a new right for renters to challenge their annual rent increases. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Howard of Rising, in this group.
I believe there is a strong consensus across your Lordships’ Committee that stands alongside the Government in wishing to prevent unreasonable rent increases being used as a means of eviction through the backdoor. However, I also believe there is a strong consensus that the Government’s drafting of Clause 8 will not work. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that providing a universal right for all renters to challenge all rent increases, in all circumstances and without qualification, will undermine the supply of rental homes and overwhelm our courts.
The Bill seeks to provide renters with mechanisms to ensure redress where their landlord behaves inappropriately, irresponsibly or exploitatively—yet I fear that the current drafting will undermine that intention in practice. At Second Reading we heard examples of poor behaviour by a small minority of landlords, but the response delivered by the Government will impact the whole private rental market, including the great majority of responsible landlords.
The effect of Clause 8 will be to create a right for all 4.5 million of England’s private rental households to challenge their rent increases annually, via the Section 13 process, at no cost and at zero risk. Every single renter will have a right to take their landlord to the First-tier Tribunal if they perceive their rent increase to be “disproportionate” or unreasonably above market rates.
The Government believe that tenants should apply to the tribunal only if they believe a rent increase is above market rents, but I am afraid that will not be the result of this legislation. The legal text of the Bill sets out that a rent increase could not come into force until after the tribunal rules, and explicitly prohibits the court from determining real market rent to be higher than the landlord’s proposal, even if that is a judge’s evidenced assessment.
The result of this drafting is to create an artificial incentive for all 4.5 million renters to submit a challenge to their rent rise, however legitimate, because this would prevent the increase coming into force until the tribunal decides. There is no risk to the tenant in this and it provides a guaranteed delay in when the increase comes into force. Once this is widely understood, renters will exercise their right as a matter of course.
This incentive risks overwhelming our First-tier Tribunal, burdening an already struggling court with hundreds of thousands of cases. This has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who has come up with a sensible solution. The Government want renters in genuine need of redress to have access to the courts, but the queue for justice will be too long for this to prove possible.
Moreover, the risk of this backlog in cases is causing serious concern among professional and responsible landlords in the sector. The prospect of extended delays to increasing rent would make it more difficult for investment institutions and build-to-rent developers to invest in new, high-quality rental homes, undermining the rental housing supply that we want to see. The reality of this backlog would be upward pressure on rents—the opposite of what the Government want to achieve.
The Government themselves have acknowledged their desire to ensure that responsible landlords can increase their rents in line with the market annually, and the Government have rightly ruled out rent controls. However, the system proposed under this Bill will in practice undermine landlords’ ability to secure market rents annually.
The Guardian newspaper recently revealed that a King’s Counsel has assessed the Bill to determine the likelihood of a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights. Subsequently, the newspaper City AM published an article outlining this legal opinion, which determined that the Government stand a greater than 50% chance of losing in the ECHR on this aspect of the Bill. I implore the Government to look into this further as a matter of urgency.
My amendments would mitigate the very serious legal risk with the current proposals on rent challenges. It is all very well for the Minister to repeat, as she has in the past, that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR, but that judgment was made before our amendments were tabled and discussions ensued. As a matter of grave responsibility, the Government should consult again with their lawyers now that these issues have been raised.
The amendments to Clause 8 in my name offer a common-sense solution that should reassure all parties. In my amendments, I propose that if a renter’s challenge is unsuccessful, rents should take effect from the date of the Section 13 notice rather than the tribunal’s determination date. I further propose that the court should be able to follow the evidence, empowering the tribunal to raise rents to what it deems to be market rates, even if this is potentially higher than what a landlord originally proposed.
I believe that, taken together, the amendments would deliver a fair result—technical changes that would keep the right to challenge while reducing the artificial jeopardy-free incentive to take landlords to court. These reasonable amendments would also give institutional investors and build-to-rent landlords the confidence to invest in the high-quality new rental homes that our country needs. To address concerns raised by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading about unsuccessful challenges leaving renters with a large bill, my amendment is drafted to mandate landlords to spread any backdating over a 12-month period.
The number of amendments proposed to Clause 8 speak to the widespread concern in this House about the risks of the Government’s current drafting. Whether colleagues support my amendments or those of my colleagues, I believe the Government’s position is unsustainable. A credible plan is needed to address the artificial incentive for every renter to challenge their rent. Otherwise, I fear for serious investment in new rental homes and the functioning of our courts system.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment 99, concerning the rent rise challenges under Section 13 of the Bill. It is essential that tenants can properly challenge excessive rent increases—but, once again, a fair balance is what we seek.
I slightly take the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to task for her reference to “consenting adults”. The reason for the Bill arises precisely because of the power differential between landlords and tenants. Some adults are more consenting than others, if I may use that phrase. I am not quite sure that works, but noble Lords will know what I mean.
I support the proposal in Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the rental increase—only, of course, if agreed by the tribunal—should take effect from the date of a Section 13 notice rather than the date of the tribunal decision. I also agree that, where this creates a rent backlog, you would need a payment plan to set it off over time. I note, however, that there would still be a risk to the landlord in those circumstances: if a tenant uses the tribunal as a speculative delaying tactic, and then if the rent increase is finally approved by the tribunal but the tenant does a flit with the rent arrears unpaid, this will leave the landlord with the unenviable prospect of trying to recover the money due to them from the departed tenant.
In short, the Bill enables—perhaps even invites—speculative challenges to any rent increase requests. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, slightly overeggs it when he says that everyone in the entire country will do that, but perhaps he is doing that to illustrate his point. Either way, as my grandfather used to say, “Don’t complain if people fall for a temptation that you have created”. For the tenant it would make rational, self-interested economic sense to automatically challenge any rent increase, and this abuse of the tribunal process would add to its existing overload of cases and therefore discourage supply. I therefore support the amendment containing provisions in this regard.
There has also been a suggestion, I think in Amendment 98, that the tribunal might set a rent above what was requested by the landlord. I do not support that, for two reasons. First, if a landlord proposes a rent increase, it must be assumed that they consider it to be a satisfactory increase. Secondly, the danger of having the rent set higher than the landlord has requested is often mentioned by tenant groups that I have spoken to as a significant cause for tenants to feel intimidated, thereby preventing challenges to rent increases. The Bill does a lot to rebalance the power in the landlord/tenant relationship, but the issue needs to be re-examined. Making a revised rent payable from the notice date, if necessary with a payment plan for arrears, while at the same time not allowing rent to be increased beyond the landlord’s requested level, would achieve a better balance of rights between landlord and tenant and would prevent abuse of the tribunal system. I therefore hope the Minister will pay heed to this proposal and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an owner of a rental property. I shall speak to Amendments 99 and 103 in this group, both of which would go towards preventing the situation where it has become almost mandatory for a tenant to take any increase to a tribunal. As that has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell, I will spare your Lordships the repetition of those arguments, but it would be silly for a tenant not to take any proposed increase to a tribunal. Under present proposals, there is no risk or disadvantage to the tenant. The very worst that can happen to the tenant is that an increase, if agreed, is postponed until such time as it has been dealt with by the tribunal.
Amendment 99 proposes that any increase agreed by the tribunal could be implemented from the date when the increase was due to take effect. That would remove some of the incentive to automatically apply for reviews.
As has been mentioned, according to government statistics, there are 4.9 million private rented homes in England. Some of those will have an annual rent review, for some it will be less frequent, but, if one takes a conservative average of, say, three-year rent reviews for each dwelling, that would mean over 1.6 million possible applications to the rent tribunal per annum. I think every three years is an exaggeration—it is much more likely to be more frequent—but let us assume that we take the three years, and that one-third of the people who have received increases in rent do not apply to the tribunal. By my conservative calculation, that leaves 1 million applicants to the tribunal. How are His Majesty’s Government planning to deal with that? Could the Minister tell the Committee the number of challenges taken to the tribunal in the last period for which the information is available? What is the present delay or wait time for applications to the tribunal being heard?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising explained, would ensure that, if there was an unsuccessful challenge to a rent tribunal on a rent increase, the increased rent would become payable on the date proposed by the landlord.
Before turning to that amendment, I will say that I have some sympathy with Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which proposes an alternative means of filtering appeals before they reach the tribunal by enabling the tenants first to check with the VOA whether their challenge has any prospect of success. However, many of the arguments that the noble Baroness used are equally applicable to Amendment 99.
Turning to Amendment 99, what Clause 8 proposes is exactly the opposite of what happens at the moment, and what indeed has been the case since the Housing Act 1988. At the moment, if a landlord serves a Section 13 increase on the tenant, giving a month’s notice, the tenant can appeal. But, if the tribunal decides the rent should be increased, the increase is payable from the date given on the Section 13 notice. That is the position at the moment, which the Government propose to overturn. The CAB website gives advice to a tenant on this subject, saying that
“it’s probably best to save money towards your rent increase if it’s due to start before the tribunal makes a decision. That way, you won’t have to find a large sum of money if your rent is increased”.
It goes on to make the point that it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision.
I agree with what has been said. I do not see how this proposal, as it stands, can possibly survive. As many noble Lords have pointed out, from the tenant’s point of view they have nothing to lose by appealing against any increase. The rent cannot be put up, and the increase is not effective until it has been endorsed by the courts.
No satisfactory reasons have been given for this, so I looked in Hansard to see what happened in the other place. The Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said on 29 October last year:
“Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights”.
But the relevant right of the tenant is to appeal against an unfair rent increase. There should be no additional right to the tenant if that appeal is subsequently lost, but that is what is proposed.
My honourable friend Jerome Mayhew intervened in the Minister’s speech. He said:
“The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?”
The Minister then in effect conceded the case:
“The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase”.
It is not “may have missed out” but will have missed out and, as we have heard, not for “a short period” but potentially for a very long period.
The Minister then sought to defend the position:
“I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases”.
But what the Minister described as “significant arrears” were sums which actually a tribunal will have deemed to be fair, and which current advice from the CAB is that tenants should make provision for. The argument the Minister uses is at odds, as I have said, with the position at the moment.
The Minister’s case was further weakened by a subsequent intervention. Again, my colleague Jerome Mayhew asked:
“I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?”
In reply, the Minister said:
“What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal”.
In a spare moment over the weekend, I put into Google, “How do I appeal against my rent increase?”. Up came the answer: use form Rents 1 on the GOV.UK website. I downloaded the form. You can appeal, free and online. All credit to the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and others for simplifying and digitising government forms. You fill in your name, address and contact details, the name and address of the landlord or agent, the amount of rent you are paying, when the tenancy began and the details of the property. You add a copy of the Section 13 notice from the landlord increasing the rent and a copy of the tenancy agreement, and send it off online to the nearest tribunal regional office. I estimate that it would take about 10 minutes. The tribunal will then ask you what type of hearing you want. Most tribunals for rent increases are based on the evidence you send—they are paper hearings—so there is no need for an appellant to do anything more than I have described.
I hope the Minister will not repeat what her colleague said in another place:
“However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 29/10/24; cols. 145-46.]
It is not onerous, and it is no lose. What is onerous is the pressure on the tribunals. I urge the Minister to reflect on the many amendments to this clause and, in her reply, indicate a willingness to think again.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
The points earlier expanded on the point about affordable rent. Is the Government’s policy still that affordable rent means that it should be no more than 30% of total household income? That immediately implies—it is a glimpse of the obvious—that for one tenant a property is affordable and for another tenant with fewer assets it is not affordable.
Secondly, where I support my noble friend’s entry into the argument is on this business of the fixing of rent by the tribunal. How long does that continue? Could that be spelled out clearly? Does it apply merely for the length of time that particular tenant is there? Would it be continued if there were to be a change of tenant and the next tenant said that was the rent the tribunal had set? If we are to have tribunal-set rents, we must be told exactly how they operate.
Finally, unless the Government can answer fully and confidently the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, this Bill will certainly fail in its objective.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, in the next group of amendments there are some excellent amendments in my name and those of others that seek to resolve some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and many other Peers on this issue. However, in this group I have a rather more pedantic set of amendments to support. I am supporting Amendments 80, 82 and 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.
The Bill is, of course, concerned with the private rented sector and not social housing, where tenants’ rights are already far stronger. But housing associations, often now known as registered providers, are drawn in to some of the Bill’s measures because these bodies use assured tenancies. This means that some ingredients in the Bill do not work for them, in particular the requirement for rent increases just once a year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has explained.
The common practice in the social housing sector is to raise the rents for all tenants on one specific date, usually in the first week of April. Many housing associations provide several thousand tenancies, and it is far more efficient to have one rent increase day for everyone annually.
The Government have accepted the need for different treatment for housing associations, and Clause 7 contains measures to handle the problem. But the National Housing Federation, which brings specialist knowledge to bear on the formulation of these amendments after discussion with lawyers, feels the position would be more clearly dealt with by the wording in Amendments 80, 82 and 83.
This is indeed a rather dull set of amendments, but they would make for clarity, administrative simplicity, cost savings and fairness, and I am pleased to support these amendments.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The point made by the noble Baroness and by this amendment is not academic. Recently there was a newspaper report of a case in Scotland where an elderly, vulnerable tenant was persuaded by her landlord to apply for a grant for housing improvements. The grant was available only because of the vulnerability of the tenant. She lived through the upheaval of the work and when the improvements were completed she was then faced with a demand for increased rent.
There is considerable force in this amendment. Landlords should not deny the entire benefit of improvements funded by government grants, and I urge the Minister to accept this amendment or to come forward with a government amendment to a similar effect.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Many housing and tenant-focused organisations, such as Generation Rent, and organisations on the Renters’ Reform Coalition support this amendment. Put simply, it seeks to ensure that public funds cannot be used to justify a rent hike.
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that government grants are for a public good. They are funded by the taxpayer with a clear purpose. This amendment refers to grants for making homes warmer, safer, more energy efficient and, in essence, cheaper for the tenants who live in them, many of whom live in fuel poverty. It cannot be right that a landlord receives public money to upgrade a property—money received largely because the tenant within the property, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, is on a low income—and is then allowed to raise the rent because of the same improvements. It is not fair and I believe it betrays the very spirit of public support.
With this amendment, the Government could stop that situation occurring, as well as provide better protection for tenants so that they can enjoy the benefit of the improvement, which potentially would have been secured because of their personal circumstances in the first place. So I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she will consider Amendment 90 carefully and come back to noble Lords on the government position on the amendment before Report.
I would also like to ask whether current schemes, such as the Great British Insulation Scheme, have grant conditions that explicitly prohibit rent increases following property improvements funded by public money. If not, will the Government consider amending those conditions so that they do, and agree that this condition should be added to all future schemes? I appreciate that my noble friend may not have the answers to hand, but perhaps she could write to me and all noble Lords with the details and intention with reference to Amendment 90?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there are a lot of issues in this group, but the bottom line, again and again, is the imbalance of supply and demand, and the imbalance of power between tenant and landlord. Demand significantly outstrips supply. The landlord/tenant balance is surely like a see-saw, with one fairly heavy person on one end and a nice sylph-like person on the other end. I believe this legislation just wants to even it up a little bit.
There are those of us who feel that, in this kind of market, landlords can and do charge what they want. Rents have been going up significantly, driving more people out of the private rented sector and—I think this is a point on which we have so far not joined the dots—into the arms of their local authorities under the homelessness and temporary accommodation route. We need only look at the rising figures to know that this is happening and happening at scale. We have debated it regularly in your Lordships’ House over several years.
I was not surprised to read on the front page of the Guardian this morning that one of its surveys found that private rented sector landlords are fleecing taxpayers as a direct result of the temporary accommodation crisis. The Guardian found:
“Local authorities in England are paying 60% more for rooms in … bed and breakfasts and hostels than it would cost to rent similar-sized accommodation”
in the private rented sector. There are far more details in the front-page article, but it is irrefutable that some private landlords and hotels are cashing in on England’s hidden homelessness crisis. The lack of supply creates a vicious cycle that is costing the country an enormous amount of money. Thus, we support all the measures the Government are taking in the Bill to try to curb unreasonable rent increases and prevent economic evictions. We will discuss this more in the next group.
We are also concerned about market rents being the deciding factor for the tribunal, given a market that is significantly undersupplied, especially in areas of the country with high housing prices. If market rents are used, they should be based on existing equivalent rental properties in the area and not just new builds, which are usually more expensive and can be overpriced. I look forward to debating the amendments in the next group, which are trying to bring some resolution to this.
I will dispatch positively and succinctly all the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. Her commitment to the social housing sector and her work with registered providers is well known. It is no surprise that she was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to whom the same accolades could apply. Such providers are in a dilemma over rents and at the mercy of the Government as to when and by how much they can increase rents, as the noble Baroness outlined very well. We are concerned that there is increasing evidence that a significant number are cutting back on their future development plans to build social and affordable homes at a time when we all want the opposite.
On the First-tier Tribunal, there seems to be a real fear around the Committee that renters will all rush to challenge their annual rent rise, as has been said by many. I am pragmatic about this. I think it is probably wise to expect an increase, which is why we wholeheartedly support Amendment 87, from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I was a little too late to put my name to it—the nominations had closed, so to speak—but I would have. If there can be a simple mechanism to weed out claims that have absolutely no chance of success, as has happened in Scotland, it must be worth considering.
We can clearly see from recent tribunal hearings that cases are often contradictory and inconsistent, and seem to rely on different sources to make a judgment, which means they are often based on an incomplete picture. This is why I have submitted Amendment 106, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Howard, for which I thank them. We are simply seeking assurances that the tribunal is fit for purpose and ready to go, and that adequate consultations have been carried out.
What is worrying is a recent survey by Generation Rent, which I too thank for its work all year round and in particular with this Bill. The survey found that less than one-third of renters had actually heard of the tribunal, with fewer than 10% claiming to know a lot about it. There is clearly a lot more work to do before we even get a trickle of people, let alone a tsunami of people or everyone, making an appeal against their rent. Thus, we could not support any amendments that involve tenants paying landlords’ costs, or allowing the tribunal to award higher rents, as these are new barriers to renters exercising their rights.
However, I have a degree of sympathy with Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and very ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. The rent should be backdated to when it would have been legally allowed to be raised, otherwise there really is an incentive to appeal: “What have we got to lose?”. To me, it does not seem fair.
Finally, it feels wrong, as has been said by several noble Lords, that a landlord should add value to their capital asset and then use that immediately to hike the rent—a financial win-win for the landlord. Likewise, Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has some merit.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 106 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I declare an interest as a former landlord.
Clause 8 of the Bill amends Section 14 of the 1988 Act to allow any tenant to challenge a rent rise in the First-tier Tribunal. It will be free of charge. No tribunal ruling will be able to increase the rent proposed by the landlord. By challenging the rent rise, as we have heard, the tenant will automatically delay any rent rise by several months, however modest and justified it may be.
This will obviously create an incentive for tenants to challenge single rent rises, regardless of the merits, and without any risk to them doing so. As we have heard, if their appeal is unsuccessful, they will then be liable to pay the increase in rent only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. That is incredibly unfair on landlords, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell have given. What have tenants got to lose? My focus is to express strong support for seeking to ensure that the tribunal has adequate resources to cope with the likely increase in the number of rent rise challenges it will face. Okay, not 100% of tenants are going to challenge rent rises, but there will be a significant increase unless changes are made to the Bill to remove the incentive to do so, because they have nothing to lose.
Given that the tenant will hold all the aces in the pack, the tribunal floodgates are likely to be, or are at risk of being, opened. Without more tribunal resources, this will greatly increase delays and create even more incentives to challenge rent rises. The Government need to get this right or the system will grind to a halt, landlords will leave the sector in droves and tenants will be at risk of homelessness. As I said at Second Reading, there needs to be balance in the very welcome improvements that the Bill makes as a whole. The relationship between landlord and tenant has to be a two-way street to maximise the effectiveness of the Bill.
As this amendment proposes, there needs to be a proper consultation, including with the senior judiciary, before these provisions are commenced, to ensure that the tribunal system is adequately resourced to cope with the increased demand—what on earth could there be against that? This is such a sensible and unobjectionable amendment, and I am looking forward to seeing it accepted by the Minister and appearing in the next proof of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Thornhill, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as well as my noble friends Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lord Hacking, for their amendments on rent increases, and all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Howard, Lord Young, Lord Marlesford and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley.
I will start with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on the challenge to rent levels. He asked whether that concerned a permanent change to the rent. When a tenant challenges their rent, it will be that challenge that is decided upon by the tribunal. Each time the Section 13 notice is issued, presumably the tenant will be able to go back again and challenge that rent. It is unlikely that they will do that, because if a landlord gets taken through the tribunal for an increase in rent, he or she is unlikely to go back and do that again.
The point the noble Lord made about the lack of affordability in housing sits at the heart of the Bill, to some extent. However, this Bill is only part of the Government’s response to the housing market’s lack of affordability, and not the totality of it. I point to the increase in supply that we are trying to drive forward and the reforms we have made to planning, which will, I hope, increase the supply of housing. There is also the £2 billion we are investing in social and affordable housing, which I genuinely think will help to change things, and the £633 million we have put into relieving homelessness, which I hope will help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the cost of temporary and emergency accommodation. Not only is temporary and emergency accommodation devastating for families—it is just awful for them, and we have heard so many terrible stories about that—it has seriously exacerbated the dire financial situation that our councils find themselves in, which is not helped by profiteering. Of course, not all landlords do that, but there is no doubt that some profiteering is going on, as has been reported in the press today.
We have a significant number of amendments in this group; in the interests of time, I will attempt to address each of them thematically. First, Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords and tenants to agree a higher rent than the tribunal’s determination. We have been clear that, after the Bill’s implementation, the only way that parties will be able to agree a higher rent is via the Section 13 process.
I am not sure why the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, feels that a tenant would object to and challenge a rent increase that they had agreed to. If a tenant and a landlord come to an agreement on a rent increase, presumably there would be no need for the tenant to challenge that at the tribunal. If the rent is challenged, then the tribunal can determine it. This amendment would leave a gaping loophole for unscrupulous landlords to force tenants to accept a higher rent, even after they have challenged it at the tribunal. Clearly, no tenant would agree to this unless they were under pressure, and it is for that reason that I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Very briefly, if I may, I rather like this idea—it is great. In the Government’s consideration, will they include where the grant covers only part of the cost and how that can be treated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, makes a very relevant point—we will have a look at both things.
Although I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 90, I have concerns about whether it would be practical to attribute a portion of the market rent to energy improvements. We need to think about how we might do this. I hope that the alternative approaches I have outlined and the steps we have taken to allow tenants to challenge egregious rents, for whatever reason the increase has been put on, provide some reassurance. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press the amendment.
Amendments 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101 and 104 all deal with the backdating of rent increases. I do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent. To ensure that tenants are not unexpectedly thrown into debt that could cause further difficulty, the Bill provides that the new rent will apply from the date the tribunal directs, not earlier than the date of determination. We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe that a rent increase is above market rates, and all parties should communicate about the level of rent increases that would be sustainable.
One noble Lord mentioned 1.6 million tenants taking landlords to court. I find that unlikely, to say the least, but we would quickly know. I have already undertaken to noble Lords that we will monitor this very carefully. If that did start to happen, we would certainly know that it was happening and would deal with it immediately. Allowing the backdating of rents risks disadvantaging the most vulnerable tenants—those who may forego challenging a rent increase that is designed purely to force them out of their home.
I turn briefly to each amendment in turn. My noble friend Lord Hacking has spoken to his Amendments 91, 94, and 97. Amendment 91 aims to backdate a rent increase to the date specified in the Section 13 notice. Amendment 94 seeks to backdate a rent increase where the tenant has challenged the relevant notice at tribunal. Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94, which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal will be backdated to the date on the Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press these three amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the process as it is now. If it really is as straightforward and simple as he said—I am not arguing with him, and I am sure he has been as diligent as he always is in looking up the facts—surely we would already be swamped with tenants appealing their rent increases, and that is not the case.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The key difference is that it is backdated at the moment. The Bill changes that, which provides the incentive that is not there at the moment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but putting a backdated rent increase burden on people who are challenging the rent because they cannot afford it in the first place would just exacerbate the problem, rather than make the proper ability to challenge their rent increase available and accessible to them, which is part of the aim of the Bill.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
If you take a civil case to the court and you win your appeal, the appeal court grants you your rights from the date they arose. Your rights are always backdated to the date the rights arose, so this is a dramatic departure from normal court procedure.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept that it is a dramatic departure, but it is done for a good purpose. We put the provision in the Bill to prevent tenants being penalised for challenging their rent at tribunal by having a backdated increase.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Is the Minister saying that a tribunal that sets a rent at a level which it considers to be right is setting a penal level of rent? She is saying that tenants would be penalised if rent is backdated to the date when it should have occurred. The implication, therefore, is that the tribunal is setting a penal rent. I cannot think that that is what is intended.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not saying that; I am saying that the penalty for the person challenging their rent would be in the debt that accrued from the backdating. That is the point I was trying to make.
Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94 which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at the tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal would be backdated to the date on a Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.
Amendments 96 and 98, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be considered in the light of his Amendment 103. Amendment 96 would allow a rent increase to be backdated to the date of the notice. It would, however, limit this to cases where the tribunal has determined that the rent increase proposed by the landlord is the same as or lower than the market rate.
Amendment 98 would similarly change when the rent increases apply after the tribunal determines a rent. It would mean that, if the tribunal finds that a landlord’s proposed rent is lower than the market rate, the rent increase would take effect from the date the landlord originally intended. However, where a landlord has proposed a rent above the open market rate, it would apply from a date on or after the date of the tribunal hearing. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the potential for the courts to be overwhelmed. We have had extensive discussions on this capacity issue.
I believe I answered his points around the ECHR in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, last week, but I am happy to take that back to the department’s lawyers again. I have also responded previously to the noble Lord’s points about the impact on build-to-rent investment. The Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.
I have more amendments to get through, but I see that I am out of time. If noble Lords are happy for me to carry on, I will.
Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seeks to backdate a rent increase to the date of the notice. It provides that tenants may either pay the backdated rent in one payment or in 12 equal instalments. Amendment 104 is consequential to Amendment 99 and seeks to define the terms “the uplifted rent” and “the rent difference”. Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, similarly proposes that tenants pay a backdated rent increase in equal instalments for a period of up to six months after the date of the tribunal’s determination. I am sympathetic to the underlying premise of these amendments, which is that tenants might face financial problems in paying a rent increase approved by the tribunal. Although these amendments seek to smooth out the impact of an increase, it is much better to remove the cause of the problem, which our current policy achieves by ruling out backdating in the first place. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seeks to remove the tribunal’s ability to delay a rent increase for up to two months after the date of determination in cases of undue hardship. The Government strongly believe that being able to defer rent increases for a short period is a necessary protection for renters. This will give them time to adjust and consider their options, while ensuring that the landlord can achieve market rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Finally—noble Lords will be pleased to hear that—Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the resources available to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). My department has worked closely with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice throughout the formulation of this Bill. This collaboration has carefully considered implementation and resourcing issues. Our shared aim is that the tribunals are well equipped to implement our reforms effectively, as I have repeated a number of times during our debates. Work is progressing in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to increase capacity, as well as to review resource and working practices. The noble Baroness’s amendment understandably reflects the need to ensure the tribunals are equipped to implement these reforms, but the proposed consultation would not provide any new information beyond the work that is already under way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as expected, this has been a technical and densely packed group of amendments, with numerous contributions from noble Lords who clearly possess deep knowledge of this Bill. I have found their insights invaluable, and I trust the Government will reflect seriously on the points raised today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for rightly seeking clarification on the mechanism available to social housing providers to increase rents. Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 are thoughtful probing amendments and we thank the noble Baroness for bringing these to the attention of everyone in the Committee today. This is an important issue for both social housing providers and for tenants living in social housing. Clear rules and understandable mechanisms build trust and transparency. Furthermore, a standardised approach, underpinned by clear and consistent rules, ensures confidence in the process that governs rent and tenancy management. The Government have a duty to communicate these mechanisms, not only to this House but to those forced to respond to this incoming legislation. In fact, I would argue that the latter is much more important. As we have repeatedly noted throughout Committee, this legislation is technical and detailed, and so the Minister has an obligation to clarify. I trust she will welcome any further amendments brought forward with the purpose of testing and probing the Government’s rationale and decision-making process.
I now turn to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Any amendment brought to the attention of this Committee which seeks to alleviate the pressures on the tribunal process must be considered by the Government. This is an important area, and the noble Baroness should be commended for putting forward ideas to help filter out appeals which simply do not have any prospect of success. Prolonged uncertainty is not good for the landlord or the tenant. Delays in resolving disputes will keep both parties up at night and add to the pressures of everyday life. Additionally, backlogs will reduce confidence in the system and many will lose faith with that service as a legitimate protector of their interests. This is not an exhaustive description of all the issues arising from an overburdened system, but it highlights the serious risks we face if these concerns are not addressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly highlighted the critical issue of resourcing within the tribunal system. This is a thoughtful amendment which clearly commands support. Ensuring that the tribunal system is adequately resourced is vital. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that their own policies do not undermine or overwhelm the very system intended to deliver justice and security for tenants and landlords alike. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, among many others, spoke with his usual vigour and clarity on this issue. On many issues in Committee he has shown his understanding that it is only by striking the right balance in this legislation—I will say it again—that we can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market for the future.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to reduce the backlog by adding a drawback or consequence of taking a case to tribunal if unsuccessful. I recognise the determination of the noble Lord to take the pressure off the tribunal system.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raises an interesting probing issue in relation to government grants. I was interested to hear that the Minister is going to look into this further. I welcome that and will be interested in what she comes forward with.
I turn to Amendments 91, 94, 97 and 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The Committee is right to consider amendments that tighten up and clarify the timing of when a rent increase or notice becomes effective. The Committee is also right to explore options that ensure a predictable timeline for this process, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling these amendments.
Lastly, I briefly allude to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Amendment 104 highlights the importance of clear, conscious definitions within law. Definitions provide certainty and consistency in application, and every Bill should have well-defined terms. Our courts rely on this, our public bodies rely on it and those who are expected to follow the law deserve it. I hope that the Minister agrees with this principle.
Next, Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is a useful probe into rent tribunals. To remind the Committee, this amendment would ensure that, if a rent challenge were unsuccessful, the reviewed rent would apply from the date that the increase was due to take effect, rather than the end of the legal process. We must consider the incentives and signals that the legislation sends to tenants, but additionally we must seek to protect landlords from financial losses caused by legal delays firmly out of their own control. I listened to what the Minister said on this, but we will be bringing this back for further discussion in the future. Across the Committee, we must consider proposals that ensure that tenants are not hit with sudden, unaffordable lump sums, but also ensure that landlords are properly compensated for a lawful rent increase. This amendment would bring this consideration front and centre, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for speaking to it today.
Briefly, Amendments 96, 98 and 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are interesting and quite thoughtful proposals. Where it is possible to do so fairly, rent should indeed be determined at the open market rate. Ensuring that rents reflect genuine market conditions helps to maintain balance and fairness in the market, for both tenants and landlords.
This was a packed and detailed group, with numerous proposals from across the Committee. Not only did I find it a fascinating debate, but once again it highlighted noble Lords’ understanding of the key issues facing the sector. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to the knowledge and expertise across this Chamber and can therefore help the Government make this a successful Bill at the end of the process. We have to ensure that we can enhance the availability of houses, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rents and really deliver security for tenants. Right across the Committee, we agree that renters need a better deal, but I fear that this group is yet another part of the story and, as it stands, the Bill is not quite the answer. However, at this time, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hacking
“(d) a lease clause prescribing a rent increase in line with the Retail Price Index or the Consumer Price Index two months prior to the date of the rent increase coming into effect, subject to a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8%;”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, we are moving to a new subject in the taking of the Bill through Committee. This amendment concerns the process of assessment. I am sorry that so many noble Lords are leaving at this juncture, but I will go on, on the basis that I have been asked to move the amendment. It is directed towards the assessment of rent increases under the open market rent test. What I am seeking to do in this amendment is to limit these rent increases to the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. That merely provides, I suggest, a brake on the assessment of rent, which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will like—she is nodding, which is very nice to notice—because she was concerned about moving into the open market rent and the unfair impact that could have on tenants’ rents.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as colleagues have already said, the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to abolish no-fault evictions. We support the measures in this Bill, particularly the provisions by which tenants can challenge rent increases. We support amendments in this group that seek to establish a fairer basis for rent increases and would prevent excessive and unpredictable increases, the severe impact of which may cause eviction and homelessness. We also support the amendments in this group that will reduce the need for tribunals to hear challenges from tenants. We feel that there is a fundamental problem with the concept of market rents, which are currently calculated by looking at a range of advertisements. This does not provide an accurate assessment of the actual rents that people are paying.
One-third of private renters are already paying half or more of their income on rent, well above the commonly accepted affordability threshold of 30%. Measures to stabilise rents within tenancies are essential to ensure that the Bill delivers the secure, stable system it promises, as well as empowering tenants to challenge unfair rent increases that result in unwanted moves.
For many renters, though, a rent increase is as good as an eviction notice. Without an established index that outlines what a fair increase looks like, the First-tier Tribunal will remain effective in supporting renters.
Rent increases must not become the new no-fault eviction. Over 300,000 renters moved last year because of a rent increase they could not afford; that is more than 900 renters a day. Market rent is an artificially high indicator for judging what an appropriate rent should be. The database proposed in the Bill, once established, would be able to capture what rents are actually being paid. This could then establish benchmarking for an appropriate rent, rather than having the traditional understanding of market rent.
Amendment 77 in my name reflects Liberal Democrat policy, which would limit any in-tenancy increase in rent to a percentage of the Bank of England base rate. This is different from inflation and other indicators that are often used. Landlords do face increasing costs from time to time, but the increases they face and want to pass on to tenants are generally more likely to be related to the cost of interest on their borrowing. Therefore, that is the appropriate measure for landlords to look to and should be considered appropriate for a rental increase. It is also often much less than the much more volatile changes in the market rent that are related to inflation.
We would relate rent increases to much more realistic, modest and accurate reflection of what landlords’ expenses are and use the Bank of England base rate as an appropriate limit on the amount of rent increase and any in-tenancy rent increase. That is the rationale behind this amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 79 and the related Amendments 84 and 85 in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill. I believe these amendments would overcome an inherent defect in the Bill, both for renters and landlords, making this a rare opportunity for amendments with appeal across the piece.
The amendments seek to protect tenants from unpredictable and unaffordable in-tenancy rent increases, but they also have distinct benefits for landlords. Together, the amendments would establish a fair basis for in-tenancy rent increases for a fixed period. As with the earlier amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the amendment would restrict rent increases to an index of inflation: in this case, either the consumer price index or an earnings index. However, in these amendments, the indexation is limited to four years, countering the concern that rents will be controlled. After four years, a market rent—if necessary decided by the First-tier Tribunal—would be allowed.
These amendments address the central issue of renters’ security, which lies at the heart of the Bill. Tenants need to know that their rented property is their home and they cannot be forced to move out by a massive rent increase. As the Housing Minister in the other place, Matthew Pennycook, said at the Bill’s Report stage in the Commons:
“Once section 21 evictions are done away with, unscrupulous landlords will no doubt attempt to evict tenants who assert their rights by means of extortionate rent rises”.—[Official Report, 14/1/25; col. 259.]
The Renters’ Reform Coalition and Shelter have campaigned assiduously for in-tenancy rent increases not to become a means of eviction by price.
The Bill’s remedy is to place a requirement on tenants to take their case to the First-tier Tribunal to set a market rent that cannot be exceeded. I argue that this whole First-tier Tribunal arrangement is a highly unsatisfactory mechanism for settling on appropriate rent levels. For a start, the outcome of tribunal hearings is unpredictable and sometimes arbitrary. Deciding on a market rent is an art, not a science. Sometimes the tribunal has accepted a case made on the basis of the asking rents advertised on Rightmove and Zoopla. Sometimes, however, the tribunal has explicitly dismissed the use of these asking rents, since there is no knowing what relationship actual rents have to the initial asking rent. Moreover, it is common practice for in-tenancy rent increases to be at lower levels than the open market rents for new tenants because landlords sensibly wish to keep their existing tenants.
There are other drawbacks to the Bill’s use of the tribunal route to determine a reasonable rent increase. First, this mechanism depends upon the renter actually taking their in-tenancy rent increase to the tribunal. This can be a daunting requirement for the renter. As Generation Rent has pointed out, very few tenants have any knowledge of the FTT. Even where renters are fully cognisant of their legal rights, many will be reluctant to go down this road, as doing so is likely to mean falling out with the landlord and negatively affecting the relationship. Taking their case to the tribunal will often involve hassle and expense, particularly if they are to present their case in person. It may require travelling a considerable distance and taking time off work, and the process itself may be intimidating. The whole business is fraught with uncertainty and anxiety.
Secondly, assuming the process is followed, the market rent determined by the tribunal may still mean that the renter faces an alarming increase. A recent Zoopla report shows market rents for new lets are 27% higher—£270 per month—than three years ago, which is an increase well above earnings growth. Many commentators are suggesting that shortages may push market rents much higher in the years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, mentioned the guideline of an affordable rent being 30% of take-home pay, but this is only a guideline and not a requirement of any kind on landlords. Sadly, a lot of tenants are paying over 40% of income on rent as the Affordable Housing Commission, which I had the pleasure of chairing, has shown. At that level of income-to-rent ratio, there is always the danger of arrears, let alone hardship to the renter.
From the landlord’s perspective, I suggest that the proposed regime based on appeals to the First-tier Tribunal is highly unsatisfactory. Those representing landlords have argued that large numbers of tenants could be tempted, as we have heard today, to take proposed rent increases to the FTT in the knowledge that they, the renters, have nothing to lose. They cannot be asked to pay more than the level the landlord proposes and they might be successful in arguing that the rent should be less. In any case, the process would save them money by delaying any increase until after the tribunal hearing, as we have heard, which could be months ahead.
A number of your Lordships have made the point that the number of cases referred to the tribunal could clog up the system and delay any decision being taken, at an ongoing cost to the landlord. Another way of looking at this, among the many that have been suggested, is that even if 99% of tenants accepted their landlord’s proposed rent increase, that would leave 50,000 cases still going to appeal. There is no way the FTT could deal with these numbers.
This overwhelming of the system seems more likely if rumours are true that specialist firms are planning to offer a no-win no-fee service, paid for by sharing the rental savings, to handle cases at tribunal hearings on behalf of renters. So, for both landlord and tenant, the dependency on securing a decision from the First-tier Tribunal—theoretically every year for every tenancy—is fraught with danger and potentially undermines the whole Bill.
I know the Government are rightly worried that introducing any form of rent control would have a significant detrimental impact, as history and international comparisons suggest. These Amendments 79, 84 and 85 do not undermine the overriding market principle; instead, they introduce a mechanism that removes the hazards of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and provides the certainty of indexation for in-tenancy rent increases. After four years of occupation, the rent can be reset at the market level, determined by appeal to the FTT if necessary. Since most renters move within a five-year period, the amendment would ensure that rents are predictable throughout the great majority of tenancies.
The amendment adopts the same rent stabilisation proposition and indexing of increases devised by the Renters’ Reform Coalition, but the amendment limits this inflation indexing to a four-year period. There may be exceptional circumstances in which indexing a rent, rather than going for a market rent, could cause hardship or financial difficulty for the landlord. A case might be where the landlord spends substantial sums on upgrading the property and needs compensation from higher rents, or has borrowed heavily—probably with a buy-to-let mortgage—and needs to increase rents by a bigger margin to satisfy the lender’s requirements, driven in part by the rules of the Prudential Regulation Authority. To cover these relatively rare cases, an additional amendment could place the obligation on the landlord to go to the tribunal, rather than the tenant, to seek a setting of a market rent, instead of applying the usual indexation.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord to bring his remarks to an end? He has spoken for well over 10 minutes.
Lord Best (CB)
They introduce an arrangement that all parties could accept as a distinct improvement on the Bill’s reliance on appeals to the tribunal.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I signed Amendment 77 because it is a really sensible amendment. My Amendment 275 goes a little further. If I was enthusiastic about my Amendment 90, I am delirious about my Amendment 275.
Back in 2001, I was the Green Party member of the London Assembly. Our group persuaded the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, to set up a Living Wage Commission. It looked at what it really cost to live in London, rather than what the minimum wage paid. The commission then went about the work of persuading employers to sign up to a living wage, rather than the inadequate minimum wage. It was a real success, one that Tory and Labour mayors have kept going. It used common sense and facts instead of relying on market forces, and many people had easier lives as a result.
I now suggest a living rent commission to do a similar job, with local mayors given the power and discretion to bring in rent controls that match the conditions in their area. We need this simply because the privatisation of the rental market since the 1980s, with a decline in social housing and the right to buy, has a been a disaster for poorer people and, of course, young people. We have a two-tier economy in which the rich get richer and the rest of us barely manage to tread water. Because the rich can buy only so many yachts and overpriced handbags, they spend their money on buying assets, which often means properties. When BlackRock buys thousands of properties for rent in the UK and another US investment firm, Blackstone, spends £1.4 billion doing much the same, what chance do a couple earning an average income have of getting on the property ladder? We have a younger generation working hard but being sucked dry every month by a rental system that benefits the rich and big corporations.
The Resolution Foundation found that private renters were spending on average a third of their income on housing costs. This is getting worse rather than better, and it is not just a London problem. Rightmove reports that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, far outstripping inflation and wage growth.
Rent control is an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, so why not here? If the Government want to save money, bring in rent controls. Between 2021 and 2025, the Government are set to spend £70 billion of taxpayers’ money on housing benefit, with an additional £1.74 billion annual spend on temporary accommodation. Why not save money on housing benefit and use that to build more social housing, and reduce the millions of pounds spent every month on temporary accommodation? I have heard a lot from this Government about affordable housing; I have not heard quite so much about social housing. We need to bring it back into use.
Creating a living wage in London made sense because people in low-income jobs spend nearly all they have on just getting by, and by giving them more money you benefit the local economy because they go out and spend it. By contrast, the more money that goes to rich people and corporations, the more that money forces up the price of homes as they outbid everyone to buy more assets.
The Government can break that cycle by establishing a living rent. When one in five private tenants are spending half their wages on rent, our economy is not working for everyone. The Government are doing their best with this legislation, but if you want real change then we need big ideas—like a living rent.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I do not share the delirium of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the reintroduction of rent controls, not least because I was a Housing Minister in the 1979-83 Parliament, which dismantled the rent controls that had strangulated the private market.
I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on Amendments 79, 84 and 85. Of the many reasons he gave, the last one attracted me. I see it as avoiding all the problems that arose in the last debate on the Government’s proposals for dealing with rent increases, in which there is no incentive for the tenant not to appeal. We all listened to the Minister’s defence of what is proposed. I may have misread the mood of the Committee, but I am not sure she carried the Committee with her.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, set out the reasons for avoiding overloading tribunals with appeals by inserting a formula for rent increases for four years. Other amendments propose different formulae. In the other place, the Minister explained that he wanted to avoid rent controls. I fully understand that institutional investment will be deterred by the reintroduction of rent control, which effectively nearly ended the private rented sector. The proposals in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to restrict increases to RPI to four years, strikes the balance between rents falling out of line with market rents and the regime proposed in the Bill, with all the risks that were referred to in the last debate. Over four years, it is unlikely that there will be a serious deviation between RPI and rents.
I did a little research on this; the average annual rent inflation in the UK from 1989 to 2023 was 3.71%. I recognise that figure may have been depressed by rents in the public sector. The long-run average in RPI is 3.6%, so there is not a lot of difference between those two figures.
My final point, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that the Minister and I are at one in wanting long-term institutional investment in rented accommodation. In our last two exchanges at Oral Questions, she has confirmed that we are at one on this. The institutions want the rent to go up each year, either in line with RPI, as proposed in the amendment, or in line with market rents, as in the Bill. They do not want reasonable increases to be regularly challenged by tenants who can simply defer any increase by appealing. What consultations has the Minister had with the pension funds, insurance companies and long-term institutional investors about whether they prefer the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Best, or want to live with all the risks in the Bill? She may not have the answer at the moment, but I hope she will consult with those people, whom we want to invest in housing, and see which of these alternative measures they are in favour of.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I am delighted to be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I wholeheartedly agree with his perceptive analysis of this Bill. We on these Benches enthusiastically support the fundamental principles of the Bill and the Government’s commitment to redress the imbalance between landlords and tenants. I welcome the elegant bridge the noble Lord has built between landlords and tenants on the issue of rent.
I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that there was an emptying of the Chamber. I see this group of amendments as a critical part of the discussion about what can help—in particular, with the tribunals. I look forward to us welcoming back shortly the people who are very interested in pets.
As the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Hacking, and my noble friend Lady Janke have so clearly articulated, there is a fundamental challenge that the Bill in its current form does not adequately address: the profound and escalating crisis of rent affordability. While the Bill introduces welcome measures on security and standards, it risks falling short of its aims unless the issue of rent is resolved. Rent inflation continues to far outstrip both wage growth and inflation, and pushes millions of renters into precarious situations, as described by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, because the highest cause of homelessness is eviction from the PRS. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, more than a third of private renters are in poverty after housing costs, and according to Generation Rent, half of all private renters have no savings at all. We are talking about people who can ill-afford any shift, however small a percentage.
The Bill commendably aims to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions. This is a crucial step towards greater security, but, as the Renters’ Reform Coalition—I thank it for its briefings—and others have rightly highlighted, without adequate protection against excessive rent increases, landlords can still force tenants out through eviction by price. This is effectively creating a Section 21 process by the back door. The amendments in this group are reasonable and measured in their aim to resolve this issue.
I am afraid that we do not go as far rent control on this—with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It would be a shame if this is perceived as a shift in that direction and that becomes the focus of the debate right now, because I genuinely believe that, with the amendments in this group, we are moving towards a solution—whether it is the Bank of England base rate or by the CPI—by attaching some kind of mechanism that helps to ensure that rents go up proportionately but fairly for everyone. By all means, we can discuss the Scotland experience yet again, but I feel it is not necessarily relevant to what is trying to be achieved here.
The primary mechanism in the Bill for tenants to challenge what they perceive as unreasonable rent increases is through application to the First-tier Tribunal. While the intention behind this is sound, the approach places the onus squarely on the tenant. I recognise that the highly competent noble Lord, Lord Young, is able to fill in a form at speed and be extremely muscular and assertive in riding the waves of any opposition. However, for countless renters—I think of a friend who is a renter who is holding down three very low-income jobs, does not have a smartphone and is trying to maintain a rent to keep her two children at primary school—the very concept of them feeling that they can assert themselves thanks to the changes made by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, to what is on a website is for the birds. Navigating a tribunal process is, for many, a daunting prospect—not for the people here who have described it in the last group of amendments but for the people out there who are renting and who are on the lowest incomes and often at the lowest ebb in their lives. They may lack the necessary means, confidence, awareness of their rights or resilience to engage with what is potentially—and feels to them—a very complex and time-consuming legal mechanism, however speedy it was for the noble Lord, Lord Young.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I ought to declare an interest. I am a landlord of private rented residential property, but I think that all—both—the renters concerned would agree that I am not somebody who sets out to extract the last penny from them; in fact, quite the opposite. More particularly, I stand here with some 50 years’ professional experience of property, not least of the private rented sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is the cause of me getting to my feet—I give her that credit. She referred to rent affordability as security. Although I get that particular line of argument, the two things differ somewhat. All the amendments in this group relate in some way to control of rent, something the Government have always said they would not do. I listened very carefully to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best, but say to him that a deferral or reduction in the receipts on a like-for-like basis is, none the less, a form of rent control. I do not think I can make any concession on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, was less bad than what might be in the Bill. I am not sure that that particular line of argument commends the broader principle to me in general.
A recurring theme is this business of the affordability of rent to renters, but that actually is not the purpose of the private rented sector; that is the purpose of the social rented sector. If we are somehow transferring something which occurs in and is a feature of the social rented sector to the private rented sector, then a much bigger debate needs to take place—apart from this Bill—on precisely what that means. I do not believe that that debate has been entered into, nor do I believe that there is any substantial investigation or research into what that might mean in practice.
If we are in fact faced with that change, I predict the same outcome as occurred after 1965. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to the rent control of the 1960s and his role in undoing that. I mentioned at Second Reading that the combined effects of security of tenure and rent control in the 1960s caused a fall from 30% of housing being in the private rented sector in 1961 to about 10% some 30 years later. Even after that freeing-up process which the noble Lord referred to, it was still under 10% in the year 2000. That is how durable the process is. It is very difficult to get confidence back once it has been severely damaged.
We must also bear in mind the progressive changes in the tax treatment of private rented sector landlords and what that has meant. It may be different when it is being dealt with at corporate level, when all sorts of things can be offset against a larger pool of property. For the 80% of private rented sector landlords who have five or fewer residential units, that does not look like the same thing at all. Ultimately, the test will be whether we generate competition in the market through an increase in supply. However, everything I have heard this afternoon, particularly from those who tabled the amendments in this group, has been about guarding against precisely that outcome that would be a failure of the intentions that sit behind this Bill. So we have to be very careful.
I do not take a moral stance of any sort on this. I stand before your Lordships as a technician, not a politician. I come with an economic view. However, if we are making a transfer of liabilities from one sector that has a considerable amount of government, financial and in many cases registered provider charitable support, to the private rented sector, which does not have that support, I predict a very significant failure in the outcomes of this Bill.
That would be a tragedy, because this Bill contains an awful lot of stuff that is very good indeed, I would like to see a successful private rented sector. I would like to see renters treated with humanity and civility and not exploited endlessly in the way that they have been. However, if we end up with reduced supply, and with those who show no civility or common decency towards their renters somehow still there, operating in some subculture or other, we will not have succeeded in dealing with this matter at all.
I wrote to the Minister recently. She has not had a moment to reply. I cast no aspersions at all, because she is extremely busy with this Bill. However, there is a need to look closely at the probable outcomes. If we do not, we will walk blindly into something that we would rather had not happened.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
I speak on this Bill from the rural perspective, which is very different from the urban perspective. The rural perspective is much more concerned with communities. In the fixing of rents, this is very much taken into account by most rural landlords. Affordability is one method: the 30%. Some return on capital is needed to keep the show on the road. However, taking account of individual circumstances is crucial.
Where there is talk about tying rents to inflation, it is very sensible that all leases make clear that, when rents are assessed annually—which seems to me a reasonable level—that should be on the basis of taking account of inflation. When the inflation is very high, it would be quite wrong to impose a full level of inflation on a tenant. We have had double-digit inflation in the last three years and those of us who were alive then will never forget 1975-76, when we had inflation of 25% per year, for goodness’ sake. Inflation is a dangerous animal. You should use it as a guide, but over a period. Also, you take account of individuals and their contribution to the community in which they live. After all, a rural community is about people in a much greater way than an urban community can be. I do not know whether the Minister has thought about this, but I would hope that she would make reference to what might work better in a rural community than in an urban community.
I very much agreed with my noble friend Lord Young, one of the liberators from a system which had almost destroyed the private rented sector. The other person who I have huge respect for is the noble Lord, Lord Best, who I have known for a very long time and whose judgment, knowledge and experience provide a very useful guide. I recommend that the Minister should have quiet, private discussions with people like that on the practicalities, because this Bill is getting knotted up in practicalities. It is easy to write it all down in clauses and subsections, but how it works will depend on human beings. Governments have a role. As a Burkean Conservative, I believe that the role of a Government is to hold the ring, to prevent people from being ill-treated in the community. It is people who matter.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, this is my first contribution in Committee, so I declare my interests as the owner of a residential property in receipt of rent and as a practising chartered surveyor for some 35 years. I would like to stop for a moment and consider why rents are so high. Well, it is simple. It is supply and demand; we have not got enough, because there has not been sufficient building since the evolution of the AST regime that we heard about, which began to encourage investors back into the market.
British institutions—life companies, pension funds, insurance companies—used to own millions of pounds-worth of private rented accommodation in the UK. The post-war rent restrictions made it uneconomical and they dumped it, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young. It took many years for that to come back. The investors returned slowly with the AST and now we are interfering with it all again.
I am not objecting to that interference; I think ASTs needs updating. But the important thing to remember, or point out to the Committee, is that there is a vast amount of institutional money lying in the wings waiting to invest in private rented property. It is there, it is identified, some of it has been spent, and it is going to create tens of thousands of units of private rented accommodation. We are talking not about tens of millions but billions of pounds, and a lot of it is foreign investment. Institutional investment is the holy grail of generating high-volume addition to the inventory.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate. Rental costs are a serious problem, and we know that the high cost of housing, coupled with other pressures, poses real challenges for hard-working families across the UK. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s English Housing Survey 2022-23 found approximately 1.2 million private rented households reporting it difficult to pay their rent. That represented 29% of private rented households when the survey was conducted. When nearly a third of tenants find it difficult to pay their rent, there is clearly a problem. When we were in government, we took decisive action on the cost pressures faced by hard-working families across the country, and we zeroed in on the most important issue of all for households: inflation. By the time this Government took office, inflation was back below target. However, following the Chancellor’s Budget last year, inflation is, concerningly, now above target.
It is against that backdrop of cost pressures that these amendments have been tabled, and while we do not agree that rent controls are the solution to the problem, we do, however, share the concerns many noble Lords have raised about the cost of renting. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised in the debate, supply is a fundamental part of the issue. We believe an adequate supply of rented accommodation is the way to address the cost of renting but, as we have warned in previous debates, the Bill risks driving landlords out of the sector and not attracting some of those institutional investors that could make a real difference if the quanta were increased. Decreasing the supply of rented accommodation at a time when demand is already high and rising will lead only to higher rents.
We also know that where rent controls have been tried, they have failed; and even the Minister has previously raised in Committee the impact of rent controls in Scotland, although, to be clear, we believe that rent controls are just part of the problem in Scotland. The SNP’s failed experiment with unbalanced renters’ reforms and rent controls in Scotland is a case worth dwelling on; there we have seen stifled supply and higher rents. That said, the Government must address the serious concerns raised by noble Lords across the Committee and listen to those tenants who are struggling with the cost of renting.
Last month, the Lord Chancellor warned that despite further court sitting days being announced by the Ministry of Justice, the sad reality is that the backlog of cases will still go up. It is right that we ask questions about the additional burdens that Clause 8 will place on our already overloaded courts and tribunal system. Can the Minister confirm what additional resources will be provided to the appropriate tribunals, so they have the means to cope with the increased number of cases brought before them under Clause 8?
Amendments 76 and 77 seek to introduce a cap on the increases in rent that can be brought forward by landlords, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to those proposals. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, has put her opposition to rent controls on the record, saying that they
“restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 335.]
We agree with the Government that restricting housing supply does not help anyone. Ministers should listen carefully to the concerns we have raised throughout the debates on the Bill.
Amendment 275, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would deliver an entirely separate body to set rules for rent increases. Leaving aside the fact that the noble Baroness’s amendment fails to provide parliamentary oversight, or that there are no clear objectives for the set of rules set by the independent living rent body which she is seeking to establish, and the lack of clarity on the governance of the proposed body, we do not feel that establishing what is, in effect, an additional regulator is the right approach. Our rental sector is already subject to heavy regulation and the Bill places additional burdens on the sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we do not wish to strangle the market. For that reason, I am afraid we cannot support this even more onerous measure which the noble Baroness is proposing.
Amendments 79, 84 and 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, are perhaps the most pragmatic of the amendments in this group, and I understand why he has tabled them. We will listen carefully to the Government’s response to his amendments and continue to work on this part of the Bill before we proceed to Report. It seems clear to us that now is not the time to impose additional burdens on our tribunals—when, by the Government’s own admission, backlogs are already rising. Ministers need to take a long, hard look at this part of the Bill, if we are to deliver a Bill that strikes the right balance on the rights of tenants and landlords without adding to the growing backlog and without discouraging investment in the sector. There are serious questions for Ministers to answer in all these areas, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this group.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords. I agree that this is a very important group, and I was sorry to see other noble Lords leaving the Chamber, because this was a very important discussion.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, for their amendments, and thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Marlesford, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to whose letter I have replied. It is in the post, so I have signed it off, and the noble Earl should receive it shortly.
As I have stated previously, and I am going to restate it, and the Deputy Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, has been very clear about this, our Government do not support rent controls. We have considered rent regulation within the broader context of the private rented sector, and we do not believe that limiting rents in this way leads to positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that so-called first- and second-generation rent controls may disadvantage tenants as well as landlords. They can have a long-term negative impact on housing supply and discourage investment in the sector, leading to declining property standards. Subtler forms of rent control—second- or third-generation rent controls—have differential impacts on different groups, typically benefiting settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move.
Academic studies from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from places such as San Francisco and Ontario, show that rent controls can limit supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to early attempts at rent controls and their impact on supply. We simply think that the answer to this is supply generally, and supply of social and affordable housing in particular, rather than putting controls on rents.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was right to say that my interactions with the financial sector indicate that institutional finance is available for rental property. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has spoken about build to rent very powerfully; the finance is there for that. That has the potential to drive the supply that will stabilise rents over time. That is why we do not want to introduce rent controls.
I will start with my noble friend Lord Hacking’s amendments—perhaps he could ask the two tenants to whom he referred to come up with a solution to the Arctic temperature in your Lordships’ Chamber this afternoon. The weather forecasts of a heatwave have been grossly exaggerated in this part of London. On Amendment 76, the Bill as presented to the Committee today seeks to remove the ability of landlords to place rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. The effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend would be to reintroduce into the Bill a measure allowing landlords to make use of such a clause. To be specific, Amendment 76 would amend Clause 7 to allow for rent review clauses linking rent increases to inflation to be included in tenancy agreements so long as such an increase fell between 3% and 8%. Rent increases made under a rent review clause cannot be challenged at the tribunal. As such, the approach put forward by my noble friend Lord Hacking risks a significant reduction in the protection for tenants, who may not understand the effects of the rent review clause and could have limited power to negotiate these even if clearly articulated. It is likely that the use of such clauses would become standard, in effect taking us back to the status quo, where the protection the tribunal offers is available only to a small number of tenancies.
Furthermore, if the use of standardised rent review clauses became commonplace, there is a risk that this would, in effect, result in a system of de facto rent control. I will not repeat again our position on rent control, but it is worth while, if the Committee will allow me, to elaborate further on why any attempt to use a single metric for calculating rent increases risks unintended consequences. The danger of such an approach is that arbitrary increases prescribed in tenancy agreements could artificially inflate the rent for some locations. For example, in Leeds, rents increased by 2% between January 2024 and January 2025, whereas in Oxford, rents increased by 12% in the same period. CPI for this 12-month period was 3%. The measures contained within the amendment would therefore likely have led to rent increases in Leeds above the market rate, to the detriment of tenants there, and the controlling of rents in Oxford, with all the associated wider issues which we have already discussed. Therefore, I am sure my noble friend can understand why the Government cannot accept an amendment which would remove the right of tenants to appeal rent increases above market rate, risk some tenants being trapped in above-market-rate rent rises, and risk the implementation of de facto rent controls.
Turning to Amendments 79, 84 and 85, I join others in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the clarity of his explanation and for all the work he has done as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. This is vital work, and I sincerely understand the motivation behind his amendments: that these would limit annual rent increases during the first four years of a tenancy to a percentage calculated by reference to CPI or median national earnings over a three-year period—the noble Lord articulated his amendments much clearly than I could. If either of those things happened, a challenge to the tribunal by the tenant would not be possible.
The first of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendment 79, would introduce measures into Clause 7 of the Bill which, as I have just set out, would separate the setting of rents from the market rate. As such, the amendment would introduce a form of rent control, and I have already explained our position in the Government towards rent control. The regulation of rents in the form proposed by the noble Lord could have a long-term negative impact on housing supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards.
In fact, the introduction of an in-tenancy rent control would create the risk of tenants in this country experiencing what has been seen in Ontario in Canada, where a similar form of regulation has limited the amount by which rents could increase each year for existing tenancies. For example, rental price growth in 2023 was capped at 2.5%, based on the Ontario consumer price index. Analysis suggests that the result of this measure has been higher rents for new tenants, with the impact felt by more mobile groups such as younger people, who are often new arrivals to the rental market. There is also evidence from Ontario that landlords have sought to evict tenants so that controlled rents can be reset at the market level. The risk, therefore, of causing unintended harm to tenants as well as landlords is too large for our Government to accept, even in an amendment as well-intentioned, as I know it is, as that put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Instead, as the Committee is already aware, our approach is to allow landlords to increase rents annually to the market rate, which represents a strengthening of rent regulation in the broader context of the entire system, including security of tenure, better enforcement and quality standards.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am about to beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I would like to reply to my noble friend the Minister and thank her very much for her detailed reply. I did not know about the experience in Ottawa, and I would like to consider that further.
I say quite plainly that I was not seeking to set up a rent control; I was seeking to set up guidance on rent increases associated with the RPI or another financial index. The reason for that was expressed well by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who detailed the problems for the renter in having to go through the process of making an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and all the difficulties in that. If that can be relieved, we would be doing renters a service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, on Amendment 89 there is an error in the Marshalled List, which says
“leave out from beginning to end of line 8”.
It should instead say
“leave out from beginning to end of line 7”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement that agreed tenancy rents can only be decreased by the Tribunal, therefore removing the potential incentive for tenants to appeal all rent increases when they would only go down or stay the same.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93, 95, 102 and 105 in my name, which relate to rent controls and caps. I apologise if I repeat quite a bit that other noble Lords have been debating, but I think this is an important issue and I would like to give my own explanation of my amendments in this group.
Amendment 92 in my name addresses an issue of critical concern both to landlords and to the overall functioning of the rental market. The current provision limits the ability of tribunals to increase rent, allowing only for reductions. Let us pause for a moment to consider what such a provision creates. In practice, what incentive does it give to tenants? In essence, this provision incentivises a clear motivation for tenants to appeal all rent increases, as we heard earlier, regardless of whether the increases are reasonable, aligned with market value or necessary. Why? Because they know that the worst outcome for them will be that their rent is either frozen or reduced.
I have tried over the course of our debates on this Bill to understand the Government’s position on many of its provisions. On this provision, I find myself asking who exactly came up with this. Who thought it was fair or reasonable to restrict the ability of tribunals to increase rents while leaving only the option for reductions?
Under this existing framework, tribunals can never increase rents, regardless of the circumstances. Not only does this create a totally imbalanced system within the rental market: more pressingly, how will the tribunals cope? How can we expect the tribunals to fairly adjudicate cases when the scope of their decision-making is so narrowly constrained?
On the issue of tribunal capacity, I once again ask the Minister to assure the House that tribunals will have the necessary resources and capacity to manage the inevitable increase in the number of cases under this new system. If the Minister does not have the figures on this available today, can she commit to writing to me with the details in full? It is essential that we understand how the Government intend to support the tribunals, given the increasing workload and the very real risk of backlogs that this Bill may introduce. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to introduce this provision without a clear plan for ensuring that tribunals can operate efficiently and without significant delays.
I must ask: is this what we really want? Are we truly creating a fair system if landlords are unable to maintain rents that reflect the realities of the market? At what point do we risk undermining the rental market altogether? If landlords begin to feel that any rent increase, no matter how justified, will result in a tribunal-imposed reduction or freeze, will they not simply choose to exit the market—and what will this do to the rental supply?
To put it plainly, this provision will lead to fewer rental properties, fewer long-term stable tenancies and, ultimately, higher rents for tenants. We cannot ignore the wider consequences of this approach. Amendment 92 seeks to correct this imbalance by giving tribunals the discretion to make a neutral decision based on the facts before them. It would allow the tribunal to increase rents if justified, just as it could reduce rents when necessary. In doing this, we would be creating a balanced system that reflects the realities of the housing market and treats both landlords and tenants fairly.
Amendment 93 addresses another fundamental issue: the ability of tribunals to backdate rent reductions. How can it be fair to require landlords to repay rent that they agreed to in good faith at the start of the tenancy? If a rent increase has been agreed to, how can we justify forcing landlords to pay back significant sums retrospectively? The provision does not just destabilise the relationship between the landlord and the tenant; it undermines the entire principle of contractual fairness. If landlords face the risk of backdating payments, why would they agree to any rent increases at all? And what happens to trust between landlords and tenants when rents can be altered retrospectively? The solution is simple. Amendment 93 would ensure that rent reductions cannot be backdated, promoting stability and fairness.
Amendment 95 ties directly into this. It addresses the delay of rent increases by tribunals. How can we justify automatic delays to rent increases when those increases are fair, reasonable and in line with market conditions? This provision creates an incentive for tenants to appeal rent increases simply to delay them. Of course tenants would do this—if they know that they can delay rent increases for months or even longer, regardless of whether the increase is justified, why would they not do that?
The reality is that the current system encourages tenants to use the tribunal process as a delaying tactic, even when there is no real case against the rent increase. What does this do to landlords, who rely on these rent increases to cover rising costs, maintain their properties and meet their financial obligations? What happens to them when the tribunal can, at any time, delay a rent increase without a justifiable reason?
I therefore ask the Minister how the Government expect landlords to respond to this. Can she explain why we are encouraging tenants to delay rent increases when the increases are reasonable and necessary? Does she not see that this provision disincentivises landlords from entering or remaining in the rental market at all? If we allow this to continue, the only winners will be tenants who exploit the system. Landlords will be left with fewer options and fewer incentives to maintain or improve their properties. At what point do we risk irreparable damage to the rental market?
Amendment 95 seeks to correct this imbalance by ensuring that rent increases are delayed only where there is clear evidence of undue hardship for the tenant. This would prevent tenants delaying rent increases simply for convenience and would provide landlords with the certainty they need to operate within a fair system.
Why is the Renters’ Rights Bill so intent on restricting rent increases, when in many cases increases are entirely justified by market conditions? The provision that rents can only be decreased creates an artificial cap that disregards the economic reality of the rental market.
Moreover, by limiting rents to reductions, we are effectively disincentivising landlords from maintaining or improving their properties. Is the Minister aware of the potential long-term consequences of this? Amendment 102 seeks to address this by replacing the requirement for rents to be decreased with a possibility for rents to be adjusted according to the circumstances. This would create a more flexible and fair approach, one that allows the tribunal to consider the economic reality of the rental market without imposing artificial restrictions.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to which I have added my name. I endorse what she said just now when she spoke to the amendments.
When I spoke to the fourth group, I pointed out that, as presently drafted, the Bill will, at a conservative estimate, give rise to 1 million applications per annum to the rent tribunals. Other noble Lords have commented on the problems which will occur. The rent tribunals will be overwhelmed. With the delay for any rent increase, this will amount to a de facto rent control, with a corresponding and inevitable loss of rental accommodation when landlords disappear from the market as they cease to be able to cope with the ever-rising costs, not least the cost of increasing regulation.
I spoke at Second Reading to the problems in Berlin, where rent controls had to be abandoned owing to the lack of rental accommodation. These amendments would help introduce some realism into the system, so that applications to the rent tribunals are for genuine reasons and not merely because it would be silly not to go to the rent tribunal when there is no risk and a possible gain.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I had thought that there would be a few more speakers than that, but hey.
I wish I could be half as certain about what is going to happen in the future as some noble Lords here—they must have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. I feel this Bill is almost an act of faith. It is quite obvious that we believe that it is going to do good things and that Armageddon will not happen. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, argued her case very well and sincerely, and likewise she believes that. At the moment, neither side really knows what is going to happen. To use the cliché: only time will tell.
The problem with so many amendments being regrouped is that we are into groundhog day, so I will be brief. As previously stated, we do not support amendments that would disincentivise tenants challenging rent rises and feel that most of these amendments fall into that category. The Bill is about a power balance between the tenant and the landlord, and is a genuine attempt to redress that balance. A lot of the amendments and statements made by some noble Lords want to maintain the status quo; for us on these Benches, that is an imbalance. We are just going to have to disagree about that.
The noble Baroness referred to the realities of the housing market. Our interpretation is that landlords can charge whatever they want—whatever the market will sustain—and we do not believe that that is right. In doing so, I genuinely believe we are creating an underclass of people who will never be able to fit into the private rented sector. That is perhaps an argument for another day.
The Minister has perhaps already answered Amendment 105, but I am quite happy to hear it again, given that I agree with the noble Baroness that such a review is important and necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on rent regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.
As I set out earlier, the Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent amounts. This is a central aim of the Government’s reform agenda and reflects our manifesto commitment. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords—let us face it, most of them are good, but there are some unscrupulous ones—using rent increases as a back door means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to reflect market rates.
We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe a rent increase is above market rates. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. We need to think about possible triage arrangements if there is no agreement between them.
We anticipate that our reforms will lead to some increases in cases, but, as I have already stated, we are working closely with the judiciary to ensure the tribunal has the capacity to deal with cases. In the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as on reviewing resourcing and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand. I am not sure if it will be 1 million applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, but we anticipate that there will be some increase initially, until the way that this works drives down demand in the future—which I think it will. This is part of our wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for the changes to case loads and procedures which will be required for our reforms.
As now, tenants will be able to challenge the rent payable in the first six months of a tenancy if it is above market rate at the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal can determine the open market rent only to be lower than or the same as the tenancy rent itself. The tribunal will not be able to increase the rent above the amount originally proposed by the landlord. We see this as a rebalancing mechanism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said.
Amendment 92 seeks to allow the tribunal to determine the open market rent to be higher than that originally proposed by the landlord. We believe that limiting the tribunal to determine a rent to be either the same as the landlord themselves proposes or an amount lower than this is fair to both parties. If landlords have agreed a rent that they consider to be acceptable at the beginning of the tenancy, they should have no fear of a challenge at tribunal.
I turn to Amendment 93. This Bill enables a tenant during the first six months of a tenancy to challenge the rent payable. It is an important provision that should stop a minority of unscrupulous landlords exploiting tenants desperate to find a new home. It strengthens our ban on rental bidding, ensuring that any landlords who seek to charge over the odds can be challenged. When a tenant challenges their rent, the Bill states that the start date of the new rent determined by the tribunal
“must not be earlier than the date of the application”.
This reflects Section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, where a similar provision already exists to allow backdating of a determination where a tenant has challenged an excessive rent.
Amendment 93 would prevent a tribunal backdating the determination of the new rent payable to the date of the tenant’s application. It would mean that the new rent could take effect only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. I understand that the purpose of this is to ensure that the landlord will not have to repay the difference in rents back to the tenant. The Government encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what rents are sustainable for both parties. The Bill levels the playing field to enable a more equitable discussion about levels of rent before anything comes to the tribunal. To be clear, the aim of this is to prevent as many cases as possible ending up in court action.
In our view, the noble Baroness’s amendment would limit the ability of tenants in the first six months of an above-market tenancy to get justice for the period that the case is in the courts. It would also increase the risk that landlords would seek to exploit desperate tenants by extracting above-market rents. I am really concerned about that, because one of the key principles of the Bill is to stop that happening.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Perhaps the Minister can help me: if you can never put the rent above market rates, how does it ever change? You can never put it up—you can only ever put it down—so it can never go up and will only ever drop. That seems a bit of a conundrum.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
No—you can put the rent up to market rates.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
That is the point. If you put it up to market rates, it can never go above market rates, so market rates can never increase. They will always stay static, and in 10 years they will be exactly the same.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.
On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.
Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination. This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.
Turning to Amendment 102, I reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties but, if they cannot come to an agreement, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the backdoor.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister explain this? If a tribunal is taking quite a long time, then the decision is made and any increase happens from the date of that tribunal’s decision, and the landlord can go to a tribunal only every 12 months, does that 12 months start from the date of the tribunal’s decision, or can it go back six, seven or eight months prior, so that it could be nearly two years rather than one year?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s question. My understanding is that the year starts from the date the tribunal decisions are made, but I will check that and write to her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
So you could lose six or eight months—it could be nearly two years. If the Minister could confirm that, it would be useful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will clarify that in the letter.
Amendment 105 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of Clause 8 on the First-tier Tribunal, and to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether further measures are needed to prevent distortion of the rental market by the tribunal’s determinations on rent. As I have made clear on similar amendments, the department is already collaborating extensively with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal is prepared for the implementation of the Bill, including any changes to its role in determining rent.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point on scaremongering, I do not think we are. I suggest that she might like to look at the latest weekend Bloomberg report on the rental sector in London. The number of landlords going out of the rental market is quite scary. It is said very clearly that they are going out because of further regulation of the sector. I will send the report to her if she would like; it is interesting.
I thank noble Lords who contributed on this group. In closing, I will return to our central concern, which runs through the whole group of amendments: the balance between landlord and tenant, between fairness and workability, and between principle and practical consequences. At the heart of this is the fundamental question about whether we believe in a truly impartial rent tribunal system. As the Bill stands, it allows only downward rent adjustments. Amendment 92 would correct that. It would give a tribunal the discretion to assess the facts and adjust rents up or down, depending on the evidence. That is the essence, we suggest, of a fair system that reflects market realities, not just one side of them. This imbalance is deepened further by the proposal to allow rent reductions to be backdated. Amendment 93 addresses this. Landlords who have acted in good faith, charging an agreed rent, should not be faced with demands to return funds months after the fact. That is not stability but uncertainty, and it undermines trust in the system.
That uncertainty only grows with the automatic delay of rent increases. Amendment 95 brings much-needed clarity to this. It ensures that rent increases are pushed back not simply as a matter of course but only when there is clear evidence of undue hardship. Without this, we risk creating a system where delay becomes the default tactic and landlords bear the cost. These problems are compounded by the Bill’s insistence that proposed rents can only be reduced. Amendment 102 introduces necessary flexibility. If we are asking tribunals to assess fairness, we must let them consider the full picture, not force them into decisions that ignore inflation, market trends or rising costs.
This brings us to the question of implementation. The tribunal system is already under enormous strain. Amendment 105 makes a straightforward, sensible request that the Secretary of State reviews the capacity of the system to manage what this Bill will ask of it. Without that, we are setting it up to fail. I urge the Government to consider the cumulative effect of these provisions. On paper, they may appear technical; in practice, they will drive landlords from the market, reduce housing supply and increase pressures on rents. This is not what this Bill should achieve, but at this stage tonight I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, relating to payments of rent in advance. The payment of rent in advance can provide a number of significant benefits to tenants. These go beyond avoiding late fees and the demonstration of financial security. Tenants may wish to pay rent in advance for financial planning or even to avoid the worry of monthly payments. Amendments 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 114 recognise and affirm the legitimate choice of a tenant to pay rent in advance. I emphasise that this is rooted firmly in mutual agreement. If a tenant does not wish to pay in advance, they are under no obligation to do so, but if a tenant chooses to take this step, if they believe it is in their personal best interest, why should we stand in their way? If a tenant makes a judgment on the basis of their financial circumstances that this is in their best interest, why should it be for the Minister to say, “No, the Government know best”? If a tenant believes their ability to pay may be inhibited by a financial burden coming down the track, they could legitimately plan for the payment now. But, regardless of the reason or even the need, if there is mutual agreement, what is the problem?
I turn to the impact of this on two groups who will be particularly impacted by this change: overseas students and those with poor credit ratings. Tenants with a poor credit rating history will inevitably appear risky—this may be through no fault of their own; they may just not have a rating history—and often this risk is too insurmountable to ignore. By paying up front, tenants can demonstrate responsibility and ultimately improve their chances of securing a rental agreement and the security of a home. In many cases, this proactive step, choosing to pay in advance, is the only practical means by which tenants can build trust, enhance their credibility and demonstrate financial reliability. Will the Minister please set out the impact of this change on those with a less than optimal credit history?
Next, I wish to address the issue of overseas students with no local credit history. The Committee will know that the UK credit rating agencies do not hold information about a person’s financial affairs outside the country, or any foreign credit reports. Therefore, overseas students often require a UK-based guarantor to cover potential property damage or unpaid bills. Where this is not possible, payment in advance can be a solution, and payments are often made for the entire term, or even the entire academic year. Will the Minister set out the expected impact of this change on overseas students, and the number we anticipate losing due to difficulties in securing student accommodation? Alternatively, does she believe that landlords will still have a sufficient incentive to house overseas students, despite their limited credit history? Will she outline what steps the Government are taking to strengthen the enforcement around credit arrears where overseas students are unable to pay? Current mechanisms are often weak, but it is an issue that is far less prevalent when payment is made up front.
I also want to highlight the plight of some of the most vulnerable, where councils have a duty of homelessness prevention. Councils often work with landlords and tenants, offering advanced rental payments, larger deposits and guarantees, which would be hampered by these proposals. Are councils to be banned from paying rent in advance to support some of the most vulnerable in our society? As has been raised earlier, the Home Office plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies to house asylum seekers. Will this involve rent being paid more than one month in advance? I invite the Minister to explain and I appreciate that she has offered to write to noble Lords regarding this. I look forward to that, and to any additional information that she is able to provide.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. This amendment requires Ministers to ensure that changes being made to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 are clearly communicated to tenants, letting agents and landlords. These changes involve fines of up to £5,000 for new offences and it is essential that landlords and letting agencies are aware of their new responsibilities. We regard this as a technical but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will see it as a practical and necessary change that can be accepted. This group will consider whether mutually agreed or tenant-requested payment of rent in advance should be permitted to continue. On these Benches, we are clear that it should. Mutual agreement can foster a more stable housing situation, one that recognises the unique benefits that rent in advance may offer certain groups of tenants in securing a home. I hope that the Minister will take note.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in his submissions just now. My Amendments 115 and 116 deal with the same problem but from a different perspective.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 111, I declare an interest as a landlord of over two decades and a former renter in the private rented sector for some 16 years.
As I mentioned before in Committee, the Bill before us has much to commend it. I support ending arbitrary evictions under Section 21, the imposition of a decent homes standard and the imposition of Awaab’s law in the PRS. Renters should not be exploited by the minority of rogue landlords. However, the fact remains that over 80% of tenants have a satisfactory experience in the PRS, and, despite HMG’s unduly negative impact assessment, it is the most popular form of rental tenancy—more popular than council housing or other forms of social housing. Remember, Awaab’s law came about because of the shocking state of some of the social rented housing, and will now rightly be applied to the PRS.
We should not blame the PRS for the failure of housing policy over previous decades and under Governments of all hues. There is a chronic shortage of affordable rental stock, and, where demand exceeds supply, rents inevitably go up, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in a previous group.
More rental homes are needed in the PRS—some estimates say another 50,000 a year, on top of an extra 90,000 social homes, are required, as was outlined previously by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Ministers should ask themselves whether there is anything in this Bill which will increase the supply of affordable rental homes, or whether the best we can hope for is treading water.
It is often quoted that the PRS has doubled in size since the early 2000s, yet it is also a fact that the PRS stopped growing in 2016 when tax changes shifted the business model, and has since been stuck at 5.5 million homes, with the number of landlords buying offset by the number of landlords selling. Now that half of the PRS is owned by 20% of the landlords with the largest portfolios, this trend is accelerating. Many of these larger corporates tend not to house families; they impose the highest rent increases in an inflexible manner and, because they tend to own large, purpose-built flats, are distinct from local communities and smaller properties.
It is the smaller landlord who often has more interest in their tenant and property, embedded in the local community—I think the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is probably one of them. This may be their only investment, and so they look after it well. Many are known to subsidise or help out their tenants in difficult times—which would be unlikely from a large corporate.
Forget for a moment whether there will be a mass exodus from the PRS because of this Bill, as the effects bed down; according to the ONS, by 2050 there will be 78 million people in this country—some 8 million more than now. Are we ready for that? If we think we have a housing crisis now, in 25 years it could become a major catastrophe. Against that background, anything which makes the current housing crisis worse should be avoided at all costs.
My amendment provides for tenants to pay up to 12 months’ rent in advance, if mutually agreed with the landlord. It provides security for both the tenant and the landlord. As has been said before in your Lordships’ House, thousands of people will be deprived of the opportunity to rent a home if advance payments are banned. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned just a few moments ago, that includes students—particularly foreign students, on whom our educational institutions rely—who have no credit or banking history in this country. It also includes self-employed people and downsizers, who may have cash but no proof of income. It includes vulnerable people with poor credit histories and county court judgments against them. All these groups often offer rent in advance to prove they can afford to stay in their homes.
If the option of rent in advance is denied, literally thousands of people will be excluded from the rental market, as landlords will feel unable to take the risk of accepting tenants with no apparent source of paying their rent. Guarantors will be unable to give unlimited guarantees under rolling periodic tenancies. Once again, Ministers have a line. The line is that advance rent payments will discriminate against those with limited means. First, most tenants are never asked for advance payments. Landlords frankly prefer longer-term, stable tenants who can prove they have enough to pay the monthly rent. Students, for example, are not always the first choice of landlords, advance payment or not. Secondly, I hate to say it, but we live in a capitalist society. Banning advance payments was also not mentioned in Labour’s election manifesto, so it is within the conventions of this House to ask the Government to think again.
We should allow rental payments in advance because, at the end of the day, this measure will help more tenants than it will hinder.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I support Amendment 111 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for leading on this amendment. I also agree with a lot that was in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. The removal of the right to payment of advance rent will cause more tenants with problems accessing housing to find it even more difficult to get access to their choice as tenants. Currently, 7% of tenants pay advance rent, according to several letting agencies and credit reference agencies. I thank the Minister for her time meeting me on this matter. We have not heard what percentage of landlords are asking for or demanding advance rent.
The Bill targets these rogue, or possibly bad, landlords who are looking for secure rental income from tenants in this high-demand rental market. During our meeting, the Minister suggested that the answer for tenants who currently need to pay advance rent was to seek out a guarantor. Most tenants would prefer not to pay in advance if a guarantor was available or could be found. In my personal experience of being a guarantor for student accommodation for both my children, guarantors are asked for not only rent but other liabilities. Therefore, finding guarantors who will be willing to cover both rent and other liabilities is difficult. Also, guarantors need to prove their income and their assets. For foreign tenants, it will be very difficult to find a guarantor with UK income or assets, and that is one reason that advance rent is needed.
For students who do not have a guarantor, so they need to pay in advance, the suggestion was that universities could provide guarantee services. This would add further burdens to many universities, which are financially under pressure. The final suggestion was to approach a local authority, to ask it to act as a guarantor. I certainly will not challenge the Minister on her knowledge of local authorities, as her service to Stevenage and Herefordshire Councils is outstanding. Sadly, from the comments made in this Chamber and the press, it would seem that local authority services are under severe pressure, so surely the addition of increased requests would be a further burden and demand on limited resources.
Therefore, if you allow advance rent, you will not add further burdens to both local authorities or universities. There are products and companies providing guaranteed services. These services are costly to tenants and a significant percentage of tenants paying in advance have a low income or a poor credit rating, as previously stated. Again, this is not a logical move. Individuals who cannot provide an income source for some reason or are unemployed, who have the funds to pay rent but do not want to access a guarantor, will be disadvantaged in the tenant selection process.
The removal of the payment of advanced rent has great merits, as it addresses a very unwelcome trend in the marketplace for the demanding of large amounts of money, which restricts the number of tenants who can access certain properties. With the Bill as it stands, more tenants will be affected and denied access to a full range of properties. This amendment keeps flexibility for tenants on how their rent is paid. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider this amendment, or have further discussions, before Report.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, most of the amendments in this group are disagreeing with the Government’s ban on being able to ask for rent in advance, and all basically say the same thing. While I am very supportive of the Government’s aims, there are legitimate questions to be answered in this area. By preventing tenants paying rent up front, will the Government potentially reduce the housing options available to financially vulnerable people? So says the letting and landlords’ association. Is it a way to crack down on discrimination against low-income renters by unscrupulous landlords? So say the Government and the lobby groups for renters.
Amendments 108 and 111, which would allow up to six months’ rent in advance or even 12 months, are troubling. Rogue landlords could pressure vulnerable tenants to mutually agree to these excessive payments, circumventing the very protections that the Bill seeks to establish. Furthermore, Amendment 112’s provision for tenants to specifically request such arrangements in writing could easily be manipulated. Landlords might simply make such requests a condition of securing the property, forcing tenants to choose between signing or losing their housing opportunity.
However, what we do know is that people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, those with lower incomes, the self-employed, the overseas students, those with a bad credit history, those who fail referencing checks and those with no family member to act as a guarantor will all have challenges passing referencing and affordability checks. They are the risky renters. The Government’s amendments are clearly designed to protect these financially vulnerable people from exploitation, but the big question is: how will agents and landlords manage tenancy risk in the future? Tenancy risk is a reality. With over 20 tenants chasing each vacancy, landlords will, legitimately and legally, be able to pick the person who represents the lowest risk. The bottom line for them is economic reality. Your Lordships have all heard my views, but even I would say, “Who can blame them?”
There are many thousands in these various groups. How do the Government think that they will get housing in the future? How will landlords mitigate the risk of tenants who fail references and have no renting history in the UK or who have CCJs against their name? Millions of people fall into these categories. My deepest worry is that the rent in advance system will go underground and people will be asked to stuff cash into brown envelopes, while rental payments will be edited to make it seem that all is well. Desperate renters will do desperate things to put a roof over their heads. I hope that I am wrong and not being unduly harsh on landlords or tenants. It seems to me that such people are left with the sole option of a professional rent guarantor service. What else is there? I am quite sceptical of local authorities stepping into that role, although they do much already to make tenancies survive and to help tenants.
What are the Government doing to ensure that those services can operate legally and responsibly, and to help this group of people? Are they part of the solution? I look forward to the noble Baroness’s answers.
Finally, to reiterate the point, a market that is significantly undersupplied and where the market rules of supply and demand result in continually rising rents, impacting most on precisely this large group of risky renters, has already resulted in a whole cohort of renters who are forced into homelessness and overpriced temporary accommodation. These are the very people who would in the past have been in social housing, of which there is, as we know, a huge shortage. The free market, under the rules as they are now, has led us to this place—a broken system—and there is no one denying that. Continuing as we have thus far can lead only to more of the same.
The Bill is a brave attempt to recognise the current imbalance between tenant and landlord, but if we do what we always do, we will get what we always get, and that is not acceptable.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Truscott and Lord Hacking, for their amendments in relation to rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for commenting on these amendments.
Taken together, Amendments 108 to 110 and 112 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords or agents to charge rent in advance when this has been mutually agreed with the tenants in a tenancy agreement. This Government are clear that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair. Many of us will have heard the stories, many of them of requests for large amounts of rent in advance that have pushed families into financial hardship or locked some out of the sector completely. In other cases, unscrupulous landlords use rent in advance to pit prospective tenants against each other and create these dreadful bidding wars to help people secure a property. That is why the Bill will prohibit a landlord or letting agent requiring or accepting any payment of rent before a tenancy has been entered into. In addition, a landlord will be able to require only up to one month’s rent in advance in the window between a tenancy being entered into and that tenancy beginning.
I want to be crystal clear on this point: once a tenancy has begun, tenants will remain free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date should they wish to do so, although landlords will not be able to require this and any attempt to require it will be challengeable by the tenant.
Amendment 108 would allow landlords to include terms in a tenancy agreement that require rent in advance to be paid up to six months before it is due. It is the view of the Government that this amendment would fail to protect tenants from exploitative rent in advance practices. Landlords, being able to require up to six months’ rent in advance when this is agreed in a tenancy agreement, could, in a market where properties are hotly contested, push tenants into agreements that stretch their finances to breaking point to secure a tenancy.
Amendment 109 would limit rent in advance to four months when agreed in a tenancy agreement. This has the same effect, with the potential for tenants in hotly contested markets to feel compelled to agree to terms that require significant financial outlay. Even the limit of two months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, proposes in Amendment 110, in our view does not go far enough to protect tenants. In a scenario where a landlord can request two months’ rent in advance, this is still a significant financial expectation of a tenant. Given that the tenant will also likely be required to pay a five-week tenancy deposit, they could face being asked to stump up more than three months’ rent to access a property.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I would just like clarification for my understanding. It has been made clear by a number of noble Lords that our concern is that some of the most vulnerable would be able to even up the playing field by providing rent in advance. I understand what the Minister is saying, but that competition, in a competitive market where there is a shortage of supply, risks excluding some of the most vulnerable. I am keen to hear how the Minister will address that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am coming on to the impact on vulnerable tenants, but it makes tenants far more vulnerable where they are being pushed to take on financial commitments well beyond their means just to get access to a tenancy in the first place.
In effect, Amendment 112 would enable some unscrupulous landlords to continue to pit tenants against each other in de facto bidding wars. In this circumstance, tenants under pressure to secure a property could face being required to offer in writing even greater sums of rent in advance.
Any one of these amendments could allow landlords at the pre-letting stage to insist upon a term in the tenancy agreement which permits rent in advance. This would leave tenants with a potentially impossible choice of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.
I would like to address the concerns of some in the Committee that those landlords who rely on rent in advance could find themselves left out of the market. We are clear that landlords are free to undertake the referencing and affordability checks necessary to give both the landlord and the tenant the confidence that a tenancy is sustainable.
The noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned foreign students. If landlords are not satisfied with the outcome of pre-tenancy checks, there remain a number of options available, including requiring a tenant to provide a guarantor or the use of professional guarantor products. If the tenant is unable to provide a UK-basedguarantor—I accept that that may be the case for international students—alternative options could be available, such as professional guarantor services.
We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned self-employed people and those on limited-income pensions. We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised a point about local authorities. Some local authorities are very proactive. The reason they take on this role is to prevent homelessness, and they recognise the benefit to families and individuals of not having to go into temporary and emergency accommodation. In addition, it can reduce the cost to the local authority if it does not have to find that family temporary and emergency accommodation, so it will take on that role.
The power gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt the constraints on rent in advance to respond to a changing private rented sector. Changes in the balance of supply and demand within the private rented sector—driven, for example, by our commitment to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament—may change the extent to which affordability is a barrier for prospective tenants entering the sector. In this scenario, the Government may consider it appropriate to make changes to the constraints on rent in advance. Equally, changes in the market could be driven by currently unanticipated future legislative changes, such as the introduction of new types of tenancies. In this scenario, the power would allow the Secretary of State to maintain the application of these measures to the intended cohorts of landlords and tenants.
The introduction of the power therefore provides the Government, or any future Government, with the ability to make sure rent in advance measures continue to apply as intended in the face of any changes within the private rented sector. However, I reassure the Committee that regulations made under the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes.
Amendment 117, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce the legal requirement for the Secretary of State to communicate to tenants, letting agents and landlords the changes made by the Renters’ Rights Bill to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which prohibits certain payments of rent in advance. I know the Committee will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renter’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood. I reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector.
This amendment would require the Government to make stakeholders aware of one aspect of our rent in advance policy, which is given effect by amendments to the Tenant Fees Act—namely, the prohibition on landlords inviting, encouraging or accepting a payment of rent in advance before the tenancy agreement is signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, it would not oblige the Government to communicate the details of the rest of the rent in advance policy.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My noble friend has replied to my Amendments 115 and 116, but I would be grateful if she could agree to talk further on them, particularly Amendment 116. It is an extraordinary situation how a landlord is not permitted to prevent a tenant moving into a property even though the tenant has not done the basic thing of paying the rent in advance. It is not an excessive amount of rent; in my case, as I explained to my noble friend, it is the rent for the rest of the month—a modest payment. Why on earth can a landlord not say, “You can’t come into the property until you’ve paid your rent”? You always pay rent in advance.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would just reiterate the comments I made to my noble friend that, having undertaken a tenancy, gone through the process of vetting and paid the deposit and the holding deposit, it will be a very rare case where the tenant proceeds not to pay their first month’s rent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I just want to follow up on the question I raised regarding the Home Office’s plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies and ask whether the Minister can confirm whether there will or will not be more than one month’s rent in advance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I did respond earlier to the points in relation to the Home Office position. Because it is the work of another department, it would be best, as I said earlier, if I clarify the situation in relation to the Home Office’s proposals and come back to noble Lords on that. It involves the contract between the Home Office and Serco and I do not want to comment on it without knowing the facts from the Home Office. So, I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to close this group of amendments. It has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have provided contributions to this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has demonstrated the case for his amendments. I thank him for the support he has given to our amendments, and I certainly support the intention of his amendments. We also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that the Bill will potentially exclude thousands of tenants from the rental market. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the issue of the difficulties of getting guarantors, particularly if you are an overseas student.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others who raised the issue that there are 20 people seeking every tenancy and you cannot blame the landlord for seeking the most stable and secure tenant for their property, with the risk, as I said earlier, that the most vulnerable will lose out. We believe that this will have a negative impact on tenants who might otherwise struggle to find a tenancy. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 provide three options for how much rent could be paid in advance with the mutual agreement of the renter and the landlord. Amendment 114 would allow rent in advance at the discretion of the tenant.
The Minister has raised the prospect of guarantors and, for those people who are not able to provide a personal guarantor, using guarantor services. Many people who have used these services will well know that these can be substantially expensive, and frequently far more expensive and onerous than paying rent in advance. Therefore, it seems only logical that one should offer that option.
The Minister has rejected all three options and has not proposed an alternative. It is disappointing to see such a lack of engagement with these amendments when they are likely to have a negative impact on both international students and those with poor credit scores. This clause reduces their ability to prove their financial responsibility and, as such, reduces their likelihood of finding suitable rental property—and, as I highlighted earlier, reduces the ability of councils to secure accommodation for some of the most vulnerable in their communities.
We raised the issue of the five-year tenancies that the Home Office is using, and I am glad the Minister will come back to us. I look forward to being assured that there is no differential treatment of landlords and tenants depending on which part of government is dealing with them.
This clause removes a tenant’s ability to prove their financial responsibility. If a tenant and landlord agree to pay rent in advance, why are the Government standing in the way? I urge the Minister to consider these amendments. Noble Lords across the House have raised genuine and real concerns with this clause. Although we all want to see a better deal for tenants, removing their autonomy to pay in advance is not the best way to go about this. I hope that the Minister will consider this before the next stages of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to delay proceedings, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might not agree with me, but I did fully answer the question of why we consider that payment of rent in advance, even when agreed between two parties, can have a serious effect on other tenants in the rental market who are not able to make those very large payments in advance. He may not agree with me on that, but I did respond to the point.