Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Personal independence payments are a crucial benefit that makes a contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability. I know how anxious many people are when there is talk about reform, but this Government want to ensure that PIP is there for people who need it now and into the future. In our Green Paper we promised to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts, and we are starting the first phase of that review today. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be inviting in stakeholders this week to develop the scope and terms of reference of this review, and will keep the House updated as this work progresses.
Imran Hussain
Many of the 41,000 disabled people in Bradford who rely on PIP to live with dignity and stability are rightly horrified by these proposed cuts. In particular, the four-point rule has the potential to devastate the lives of tens of thousands of people in Bradford overnight. Let us be clear: these plans would take away a vital lifeline from those with the greatest need living in the most deprived areas of Britain. I cannot support any cuts that worsen inequalities in places such as Bradford, so I say to the Minister in absolute sincerity: please listen to the growing calls in this place and out there to scrap these unfair cuts and instead do the right thing by taxing the super-rich so that they can pay their fair share.
Liz Kendall
I hear very clearly what my hon. Friend says, but I also want to be clear to the House: if people can never work, we want to protect them; if people can work, we want to support them. The truth is that a disabled person who is in work is half as likely to be poor as one who is out of work. We want to improve people’s chances and choices by supporting those who can work to do so and by protecting those who cannot.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The personal independence payment does what it says on the tin: it is designed to enable people to live an independent life. As someone who has represented constituents in tribunal appeals, I know only too well that, while there are many who should not be claiming PIP, there are also many whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent. Will the Minister assure me that she will use the utmost care and sensitivity before taking any further decisions?
Liz Kendall
I can absolutely reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we will make these changes carefully. We are consulting with disabled people and the organisations that represent them about what support can be available for anyone who loses out. We will be consulting with disabled people about how to build our £1 billion a year employment support programme, and we will make sure that those who can never work will be protected, including by making sure that they do not have to go through reassessment repeatedly, which has been the situation so far.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that there will be a full review of PIP in consultation with disabled people and their organisations. PIP was designed 13 years ago, but since then we have increased our understanding of the impact that fluctuating conditions and mental health problems can have on disabled people’s ability to live independently. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is certainly past time for a review of the PIP system to ensure that mental health problems are fully understood and that the fluctuating nature of some conditions is properly taken into account?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is more than a decade since PIP was introduced, and there have been changes in the prevalence of disability, in the nature of long-term conditions, in wider society and in the workplace too. We have also seen a real increase in recent years in the numbers of younger people and those with mental health conditions, so it is right that we now have a review of the PIP assessment process. This is a highly sensitive issue, and it will take time, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability and I will be doing this in consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, and we will begin inviting them in from this week. I also very much hope that all Members of Parliament can feed into this process, including with the organisations in their own constituencies.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of our concerns around the changes and the damages they could do to the most vulnerable. She will also be aware of the implications for the Scottish Government who administer this. Will she at least give me the assurance that the full details about how the changes will interact with devolved powers will come before a vote is brought to this Chamber?
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is working closely with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that the changes work in every part of the country. I also say to Opposition Members that we want to ensure that disabled people in Scotland have the same rights, chances and choices to get into work, stay in work and get on in their work, so I hope the hon. Member will be keen to work with us on those issues, too.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In my constituency, more than 3,000 people are set to lose the lifeline that is PIP. When we look at other elements of the Green Paper, 3.2 million families across the country are set to lose out. Often, those who benefit from PIP are from the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom, and those are set to be hit hardest. Will the Secretary of State advise how the Government are considering the economic impact of the cuts on these communities with high levels of deprivation?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman’s figures are the number of people right now who may have fewer than four points on PIP. These changes are not coming in overnight—they would not be implemented until November next year—and many people’s health conditions change, so it is not right to say that that is the exact number who would lose out. We want to ensure that anyone who does lose out has their eligible care and health needs met, as well as having the employment support they need. We know that many disabled people want to work. They have too often been denied opportunities to get into work, and this Government want to change that.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
It is an unacceptable part of the Conservative legacy that almost 1 million young people are out of work or education and have little hope of a good start in life. That is why, as part of the plan to get Britain working, we will create a guarantee for all young people aged 18 to 21 in England to ensure they have access to high-quality training or an apprenticeship, or have help to find work. That plan will be vital to young people everywhere, including in Makerfield’s towns.
Josh Simons
In the towns I represent, the largest type of private employment is the trades. Bricklayers, plumbers, electricians—these are the people who build our nation’s future and on whom our future security and prosperity depend. They are the working people the Labour party was created to represent. What is the Minister doing to ensure that more young people get into the trades, in particular partnering with local technical colleges like ours in Wigan and Leigh?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that question because, as the Prime Minister says, we are the party of the builders. As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party was created to serve the simple principle that working-class people could run the country. The Department for Education is working closely with colleges and with us in the Department for Work and Pensions to create construction foundation apprenticeships from this August, which will give many more young people the tools they need for a career in the trades. That is in addition to DWP support for employers, which we have recently expanded specifically with those trades he mentions in mind.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The rules and regulations that apply to employment, education or training in the Makerfield constituency should apply across this great United Kingdom. Many of those in the construction sector that the Minister referred to, whether they are builders, carpenters, plumbers, plasterers or electricians, come from my constituency of Strangford across to London, so it is important that people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland get the same opportunities through the colleges. Will the Minister ensure that discussions take place with Northern Ireland so that my constituency can continue to supply the people who build houses here in London?
Alison McGovern
I pay tribute to all those from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who have been part of building our whole country. We work very closely with the devolved Administrations across the United Kingdom to ensure that, as the Secretary of State laid out, chances and opportunities are there for everybody. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we move forward through our change programme.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Our new changed jobcentres will serve the whole of Great Britain. The changes that we are bringing forward will mean more personalised help for everyone, but especially young people. Frontline work coaches who help young people need better technology and more time to help them find the best opportunities. The goal of our changes is to better serve employers and young people.
Chris Murray
In the pandemic, young people were among the least at risk, but they gave up so much of their lives to protect those who were at risk. No generation has made such a sacrifice for another since the war, but they have been badly let down: across the UK, one in eight are not in employment, education or training, and it is worse in Scotland, where the figure is one in six young Scots. What steps is the Minister taking to mitigate the inaction of the SNP Scottish Government and build a better future for young Scots?
Alison McGovern
As I just mentioned, our new jobcentres will create a universal service across Great Britain. We must make those changes to serve young people. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the pandemic generation, who deserve much better from us all. I know that his city of Edinburgh is full of chances and opportunities that we cannot let go to waste. Given the role of Edinburgh and Glasgow in our visitor economy, I am sure that he will be interested in the work we are doing with UKHospitality to help more young people to have an opportunity in that great sector.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Struggling to make ends meet, paying bills, buying work appropriate clothing and paying for public transport all affect someone’s ability to get and keep a job. That is just as true for under-25s as it is for anybody else, but the Government continue to maintain a lower rate of universal credit for young people when there is no guarantee that they have financial support from their families. In looking at universal credit, will the Government consider that?
Alison McGovern
As the hon. Member will know, we are reviewing universal credit. I am particularly focused on ensuring that young people have a chance before they reach the age of 25. If they are out of work in those first years after leaving school or college, it is absolutely devastating for the rest of their careers. That is why we are making these changes.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Over the weekend I was shocked, but not surprised, to see the new statistics for young people in Thanet who are not in education, employment or training—having hit 11.6%, the figure is the highest in the south-east. Some 3% of young people in Thanet also experience support for special educational needs. Although I am not suggesting that correlation equals causation, can the Minister explain how denying access to the health-related element of universal credit will help those young people into work?
Alison McGovern
The House will know that we have consultations in a number of policy areas relating to my hon. Friend’s question. As I have said, in the end, young people need an opportunity at the start. In places like Thanet, where there are significant poverty and challenges but great opportunity, I want to ensure that we serve employers, and the young people who need them, much better.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Employers in my constituency tell me that they are less likely to employ young people as a result of the Employment Rights Bill because of the increased risk of employing someone at the start of their career. What representations has the Minister made to her colleagues to ensure that the most damaging parts of that legislation are softened?
Alison McGovern
The House may know that, on coming into office, the Secretary of State and I totally changed the way the Department for Work and Pensions approaches employers. We want to serve them much better, and we have given them a single point of contact. Having met many businesses over the past six or seven months, my experience has been that they have vacancies and want us to help fill them. We will do that so that we can serve employers and young people alike.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Department is committed to ensuring that individuals receive high-quality and accurate assessments. Assessment suppliers are closely monitored using a range of performance measures designed to improve the accuracy of their advice. Independent audits are conducted to maintain high standards, and as part of our pathways to work proposals we are considering recording assessments as standard to increase transparency and build trust in the system.
Robin Swann
Data shared with me by Dermot Devlin from Disabled People Against Cuts shows that £50 million has been spent on PIP appeals in the past year alone, and also that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has reported that over 70% of those PIP appeals have been successful. When people are put through the harrowing process of being told that their PIP appeal is not appropriate and having to go through the entire appeal system, what are Ministers doing to ensure that any changes make that system friendly to those using it?
Andrew Western
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the assessment process and the mandatory reconsideration process, but I would also say to him that I do not recognise those statistics. Indeed, under the current statistics, appeals are down by 16% on the previous year to January 2025. The other point that I would make to him is that while around 20% of applications are subject to a mandatory reconsideration, only around 5% of those are successful.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Centre for Inclusive Living in Dudley, which supports those with disabilities, and many residents have written to me to raise concerns about the PIP entitlement criteria and assessment. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that this Government will protect those most vulnerable in society and that those with disabilities will be enabled, not disabled?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for raising her constituents’ concerns and say to them that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of this session, we have this week announced a broader review of the PIP assessment process that I hope in due course, and by working with stakeholders, will be able to give my hon. Friend’s constituents and stakeholder organisations considerable reassurance.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why it appears that telephone assessments for PIP have a significantly higher success rate in applications than face-to-face applications?
Andrew Western
I am not able to explain the reason for that difference, but I am able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to move away from telephone appointments and return as quickly as possible to assessments made face to face wherever we are able to do so.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Can the Minister give us more information on what the PIP assessment review will look like?
Andrew Western
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the review has only been announced today. There are a considerable number of strands to it that will be led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that work is beginning this week by reaching out, as is entirely appropriate, to those stakeholder organisations, who will feed in to the purpose and scope of that work moving forward.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
As I said in response to an earlier question, it is over a decade since PIP was introduced and there have been significant shifts in the nature of disability and long-term conditions in this country, as well as changes in wider society and the workplace. That is why our Green Paper announced our plans to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others. We are starting that work today, inviting key organisations representing disabled people in to discuss the terms of reference, which we will publish, and we will continue to keep the House updated as our work progresses.
Richard Burgon
There has rightly been a lot of focus on the 250,000 people the Government’s own impact assessment says will be pushed into poverty by this cruel disability benefit cut, but the true impact on poverty will be even worse. New DWP figures, obtained from a freedom of information request, show that 700,000 families already in poverty will be hit even harder. It is wrong that that has had to come out through a freedom of information request, so will the Minister come clean today about the true scale of poverty that this disastrous policy will cause? Does it not fly in the face of what a Labour Government are meant to do—lift people out of poverty, not push them further into poverty?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend will know, as we have been very clear with the House, that those figures do not take into consideration the number of disabled people who we believe will find work through our biggest ever investment in employment support, Pathways to Work. Neither do they take into consideration the huge strides we will make with our forthcoming child poverty strategy. We have been more open and transparent than any previous Government, publishing all the poverty impact and other detailed assessments, because we are very happy to have this debate in the House and to put forward our case. Our mission is to get as many people as we can into work and on in their careers, with more income and better choices and chances: that is what a Labour Government are for.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My consistent, Louisa, wrote to me about her PIP assessment. She suffers from a number of debilitating fluctuating conditions. Her assessment took over two hours and the assessor ignored her explanations, did not ask how she felt afterwards and threatened to end the call when her words were misinterpreted, which goes against DWP guidance. Will the Secretary of State undertake to review how fluctuating and invisible conditions are handled in the assessment process?
Liz Kendall
Yes, and I would really like the hon. Lady to send in that information and we will go through it with a fine-toothed comb.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would be interested to hear from the Secretary of State about what assessments she has made of the impact on public services, particularly adult social care, of the move to change personal independence payments. In my local authority, the director has said to me that she is deeply concerned about the additional costs and about moving people into dependency, as their independence is removed. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment has been made and provide figures to demonstrate that?
Liz Kendall
Our objective is to give disabled people more independence by ensuring that those who can work have the support to do so. We have clear evidence that being in work is good for people’s health: good work is good for people’s physical and mental health. We are investing extra money into social care, including an additional £3.7 million this year, on top of the £26 billion extra for the NHS. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, as I know she is passionate about ensuring that people have the help, care and support that they need and deserve.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told me that cutting back on PIP eligibility was in line with post-war Labour principles, but more and more Labour Members are saying that that policy—balancing the Government’s books on the backs of disabled people and those who care for them—is cruel and wrong in principle. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is right?
Liz Kendall
I do not recognise the way the hon. Lady framed the Prime Minister’s answer. We want a social security system that protects those who can never and will never work, but disabled people who are out of work and economically inactive are more likely than non-disabled people to say they want to work, and if they are in work, they are half as likely to be poor. We want to shift the focus of the system to do more to help people who can work to do so, and to protect those who cannot, because that is the way that we give people a better future.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
As we have already discussed, every young person in this country needs a good start. As part of our plans to get Britain working, we announced £45 million-worth of funding for eight youth guarantee trailblazers to lead the way. Kensington and Bayswater is covered by the youth guarantee trailblazer launched last month by the Greater London Authority.
Joe Powell
I recently visited the North Kensington jobcentre to learn about its support for young people and discuss the potential for working more closely with our brilliant local college, the North Kensington Centre for Skills, so that people can access opportunities in industries such as trades and housing. Will the Minister outline what more the Department is doing to bring together colleges and jobcentres for young people?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend both for his question and for going to see the team at the North Kensington jobcentre; there is a really dedicated team of five work coaches specifically for young people. I am working with colleagues in the Department for Education on the development of Skills England so that in the future our work coaches—for example, the five who serve his constituency and look after young people—will have much closer access to get them into courses and get them building to move our economy and their careers on.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Government’s own impact assessment of their Employment Rights Bill says that it will increase the cost to businesses by £5 billion, which will be borne mostly by small businesses. Does the Minister share my concern that, when combined with the additional national insurance charges on employers, that will reduce the opportunities for young people in my constituency just as much as for young people in Kensington and Bayswater?
Alison McGovern
I have said already in this session of questions that we have changed the DWP to serve employers much better, and that is an important shift. I understand that Conservative Members do not want people in this country to have greater rights at work, sick pay if they need it or secure hours if they are on an exploitative zero-hours contract. Unfortunately for them, last year the public voted for the opposite.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
This is an important question, and one where we have seen some good news on the back of cross-party working over the last 15 years. Automatic enrolment has succeeded in transforming participation rates in workplace pensions, particularly for young people. Participation among all eligible 22 to 29-year-olds has increased from 35% to 86%, but there is much more to do. That is why the second phase of our pension review will look at further steps to improve pension outcomes for everyone, including those lucky enough to be young.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for that response. Thanks to the introduction of auto-enrolment, millions of young people are now saving for their retirement, but I have heard worrying reports in Mid Bedfordshire that increases in employers’ national insurance, which have resulted in pay freezes, are now causing people to decide to opt out of pension savings. Does the Minister recognise that risk to pensions adequacy? If so, what is he doing to address it?
Torsten Bell
Less than 1% of savers actively opt out of saving each month, but the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that we need to remain vigilant and ensure that opt-out rates do not rise in the years ahead. There was some more volatility in opt-out rates during the pandemic, for reasons that I am sure he will understand, but, as I say, we have been seeing those come down recently. I am happy to keep talking to him about that in the years ahead.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
If we want young people, including those in my constituency, to believe in the value of long-term investing, they need to see that their pensions are helping to build the country that they live in and are not just distant markets. Will the Minister set out what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government’s pensions reforms encourage funds to invest more in UK infrastructure and hybrid companies?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Although we celebrate the success of auto-enrolment, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) has just done, we must complete the job. We need bigger and better pension funds that are better able to deliver returns for their members, support our economy and invest in infrastructure and private assets in the months and years ahead.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Pathways to Work sets out reforms to stop people falling into inactivity. They include tailored employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds, including those claiming personal independence payments, so that they can fulfil their ambitions like everybody else.
John Milne
The Government say that their PIP reforms will help people into employment, but the Multiple Sclerosis Society says that 60% of sufferers believe those reforms will make it harder for them to find work, not easier. An estimate must have been made of what percentage of claimants will feasibly enter employment as a result of these reforms. Will the Minister share those figures?
Sir Stephen Timms
This is a very important set of reforms, for exactly that reason—to make sure people do have the opportunity to move into work. One in five working-age PIP claimants were in work in March last year; we want many more to have that opportunity. We are going to improve employment support substantially, Connect to Work is being rolled out across the country this year, and there will be an additional £1 billion per year for employment support by the end of the Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the impacts of these changes will be set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the autumn Budget, and there will be very big improvements for those who are intended to benefit from them.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Helping those who can work to find meaningful employment is an important way to tackle poverty among disabled people, but it will require investment in employment support programmes, incentives for employers to recruit disabled people and enforcement of anti-discrimination rules. Given the importance of these measures, is it not appropriate that Members are asked to vote on any changes to the benefits system only after all the information about the impact of the proposals has been provided?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right about the scale of the ambition and the changes that need to be made to deliver on it. Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading the Keep Britain Working review at the moment, looking at what more employers can contribute to those goals. We have committed an extra £1 billion a year for employment support, but we need to get on with the changes we have announced in order to ensure that the costs of PIP in particular are sustainable in the future, as it is very important they should be.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is six weeks since the Government cobbled together an emergency plan for welfare cuts to rescue the Chancellor from the consequences of her job-destroying, economy-shrinking Budget, but we are still waiting for some information. Can the Minister tell the House how many more people will be in work as a result of these measures?
Sir Stephen Timms
As I have just told the House, the Office for Budget Responsibility will publish its assessment in the autumn—that is what we said at the time of the spring statement. This is a very big programme; the commitment of an additional £1 billion a year to employment support will open up opportunities for a very large number of people, in the way that the new deal for disabled people did under the last Labour Government all those years ago. We want to get back to providing the support that people need. At the moment, 200,000 people who are out of work on health and disability grounds say that they could be in work today if they had the support they need. We are committed to delivering that support.
Danny Kruger
I look forward to the OBR’s report, and also to its assessment of the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. We know that many tens of thousands of jobs are going to be lost because of the national insurance rise, and we know from the OBR that because of the changes that the Government have introduced and the scrapping of the measures we were introducing, 16,000 fewer people will be in work and almost half a million more will be on long-term sickness benefits.
However, let me ask the Minister about disability benefits. Is he aware that half the number of people who receive PIP who have multiple sclerosis will no longer be eligible for that benefit under the plans that the Government are bringing forward? A quarter of people with cerebral palsy and three quarters of people with arthritis will also be ineligible. Is the Minister happy with that, and if not, what hope can he give the hundreds of thousands of people who are being abandoned that the Government will look after them?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. These changes will not take effect until November next year and following each claimant’s award review after that date. Who receives the benefit will depend on the outcome of the assessment at that time. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility is that about 10% of those who are currently claiming PIP will lose their benefit as a result of these changes—a much lower proportion than the one he has just referred to.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
In Colne Valley, my hon. Friend’s constituents receive support from Huddersfield jobcentre. Work is also ongoing led by West Yorkshire combined authority, which is one of our trailblazers. It is stepping up to help everybody who needs help getting into work, whether or not they are on universal credit.
Paul Davies
Recently, Kirklees college, in partnership with Flannery Plant Hire and Kirklees council, officially launched the Kirklees operator skills hub to meet local skills demand in the construction industry. The hub, which is the fifth of its kind in the country, is a mobile unit with two virtual-reality plant machinery simulators and classroom facilities for skills bootcamps, and will open many doors for young people in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that such initiatives will help many young people into work, and help us to bring about the growth that we need in our economy?
Alison McGovern
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As we have said in response to a number of questions, our ministerial team know that this Government are about building the homes that we need and ensuring that the jobs in the sector go to people who will really benefit from a career in construction, and I congratulate Kirklees college and all those involved in that pioneering work. Last week I visited the UK Construction Week conference, where George Clarke talked about the fantastic opportunities in construction and the great building businesses. I say well done to everyone in my hon. Friend’s constituency who is pushing this forward.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I refer the right hon. Member to the Secretary of State’s letter of 19 November to the Work and Pensions Committee. As well as means-testing the winter fuel payment, this Government launched the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, because we want all pensioners to receive the support to which they are entitled. The result has been almost 50,000 more awards than were received during the same period in the preceding year.
Wendy Morton
The Government did indeed launch a campaign to increase the number of pension credit applications, but sadly there was also a surge—an increase of 133%—in the number of claims that were not allowed, and more than 100,000 awards were not made. For many pensioners, including a number in my constituency, the winter fuel payment was a lifeline—indeed, many need their heating to be turned on throughout the year, not just during the winter—but just because of an arbitrary threshold they now receive nothing at all, and they are losing out. Will the Government look at this again, given the impact and the risk of pushing more pensioners into poverty?
Torsten Bell
I can tell the right hon. Member about pensioner poverty. It halved under the last Labour Government and it rose on the Conservatives’ watch, by 200,000. Yes, we have had to make some difficult choices, but it is because of those difficult choices that we can afford a £31 billion annual increase in the state pension over the current Parliament and an extra £26 billion a year for the NHS. None of those choices would the Conservatives back, which is why the NHS and the state pension would be endangered on their watch.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
In my 10 years as a Member of Parliament, I have run consistent campaigns throughout my constituency to raise awareness of pension credit and encourage hundreds of people to sign up to it, but I know that many of my constituents are just above the threshold and by no means well off. What assessment will the Government make of those who are not eligible for pension credit but will still face fuel poverty next winter?
Torsten Bell
I am grateful for the work that has been done by councils and third sector organisations throughout the United Kingdom to drive uptake of pension credit. That work has led to the 50,000 extra awards that I mentioned earlier. The choices we have made mean that we can protect pensioners across the board, and the 4.1% increase in the state pension in April was possible exactly because of the tough choices that we have had to make.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Stockport council was one of the first local authorities to roll out the warm spaces programme that was used by third sector groups to support people in need during the winter months. Will the Government commit themselves to helping authorities roll such programmes out earlier, in the face of the winter fuel cuts and rising energy prices?
Torsten Bell
I am grateful for the work of local authorities, including mine in Swansea, to provide places for pensioners and, in fact, members of all age groups to go to if they are in need during the winter. The most important action we can take is tackling directly the cause of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised by bringing down energy bills in the years ahead, moving away from the system that the Conservatives left us—which is dependent on the price of gas driven by the action of dictators such as Putin—and continuing to raise the state pension faster than inflation over the current Parliament, which is why the new state pension is set to increase by £1,900 by the end of this Parliament.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
This morning, the Work and Pensions Committee was at the Welsh Assembly, where we heard from Wales’s Older People’s Commissioner as part of our pensioner poverty review. I was impressed that Wales has a role with real legal clout. From what we heard, it is making a difference for older people in Wales. Do Ministers agree that we should at least look at extending that to England and Scotland?
Torsten Bell
We should always learn lessons from Wales. In fact, this Government are already doing that. The roll-out of free breakfast clubs, which is happening across England at the moment, was pioneered in Wales. Children are receiving a free breakfast because of the work done in Wales. I praise my hon. Friend and the entire Work and Pensions Committee for the work that it is doing as part of its inquiry into pensioner poverty. I will be coming to give evidence to the Committee shortly, and I know that its members have been listening not just in Wales but more widely, with events in Glasgow and Manchester as well.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I suspect that the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are now surrounded: I suspect that they are the only people left in this Chamber who are prepared to defend the cutting of the winter fuel payment. Dozens of their own MPs have now joined a long list of people telling the Government that they have got it wrong, including the Welsh First Minister—talking about learning lessons from Wales—the money-saving expert Martin Lewis, and voters up and down this country. The Conservatives have led this campaign from the start, but if the Government will not listen to us, will they now listen to everyone else and think again?
Torsten Bell
We have set out our policy, but here we are 10 months on and I have no idea what the Conservatives’ policy is. I am not even sure that they know what their policy is. For all the shouting, there is no promise to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment. There is one policy from the Leader of the Opposition, the very woman who called for the winter fuel payment to be means-tested in 2022: now, she wants to means-test the entire state pension. Apparently, that is “exactly the sort of thing we will look at”. She thinks that is bold policymaking. It is not—it is bonkers.
Mr Speaker
The good news is that the Minister has no responsibility for the Opposition.
Helen Whately
That is not something that the Leader of the Opposition said. To the point in hand—the winter fuel payment—I wonder for how much longer this tone-deaf final stand will go on. Every time the Government talk about winter fuel payments, they make out that they had no choice, but that is simply not true. To govern is to choose. At best, this policy was only ever going to save £1 billion or so, but they are spending £8 billion on setting up an energy company, and the cost of asylum hotels will rise to £15 billion under Labour. This has always been a choice, and it is the wrong one. Can the Minister guarantee that next winter, every single one of the 750,000 poorest pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment this year will receive it?
Torsten Bell
I can guarantee that this Government are going to deliver on our priorities for pensioners by raising the state pension, with a £470-a-year increase this April, and saving the NHS, with a £26 billion increase every single year. What will the Conservatives be doing? None of that, because they oppose every single measure required to fund it. We know what the Tory plan is, because we have just lived through it: pensioner poverty rising and the NHS collapsing.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
This Government are committed to tackling poverty right across the UK. We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it is doing the job we want it to do: making work pay and tackling poverty. We have already announced that we will improve the adequacy of the standard allowance in universal credit, and we have introduced the fair repayment rate. Alongside that, the child poverty taskforce is exploring all available levers to reduce child poverty in all four nations, including considering social security reforms.
Ann Davies
Just a day before the new figures revealed yet another rise in child poverty in Wales, the UK Labour Government confirmed plans for billions of pounds-worth of welfare cuts, pushing tens of thousands more children into hardship. The Government tell me that the data is not robust enough to know the poverty impact on Wales, which is really not good enough. The Labour First Minister—of the Senedd, not the “Assembly”, if I may correct the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan)—has also criticised this Government’s approach. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the First Minister of Wales, conduct a Wales-specific impact assessment and scrap these cruel measures?
Andrew Western
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I am sure she would not want us to produce a potentially inaccurate assessment of the impact on Wales. What I would say—and I am sure that she agrees with this—is that the levels of poverty in Wales are unacceptable, which is a result of 14 years of the Conservative party failing to address the long-term industrial decline of many communities across Wales. I would also say to her that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work, so I am sure she will welcome the recent launch of the inactivity trailblazer in Wales.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me that the new fair repayment rate, which caps universal credit deductions at 15%, along with the actions of the Welsh Government to help more than 48,000 young people gain skills and find jobs through the young person’s guarantee scheme will help alleviate poverty in Wales, and therefore should be welcomed?
Andrew Western
I of course agree with my hon. Friend, about both the benefits of the youth guarantee and the specific impact of the fair repayment rate, which across the country will support 1.2 million of the poorest families, including 700,000 families with children.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Since our last Question Time, Work and Pensions Ministers and local leaders have launched eight of our 17 Get Britain Working trailblazer programmes across the UK, backed by £240 million of additional investment. These include South Yorkshire’s brilliant plans to get people back to health and back to work; five trailblazers in London, including specialist support for young care leavers and those with musculoskeletal conditions; joining up health and employment support in Blaenau Gwent, Denbighshire and Neath Port Talbot in Wales; and our youth guarantee in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. There is still much more that we need to do, but we have already made real progress in unlocking people’s potential and getting Britain working and growing again.
Greg Smith
One of my constituents is experiencing severe delays in getting Access to Work scheme payments, dating back to February. In correspondence with the Department, a letter openly says there is no long-term solution to that, so when will the Secretary of State come forward with a long-term solution to speed up these payments?
Liz Kendall
I really thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and we do actually have a plan right now. It was announced in our Green Paper that we are going to reform Access to Work. It is a brilliant support, with a grant or money to help people with physical aids and adaptations, and other support, to get work and to stay in work. I would encourage him to input into the review, and either I or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability would be more than happy to meet him to hear his views about how we can make this work for his constituent.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
My hon. Friend raises a very important subject. Social security must always be there for those who cannot work. The changes announced recently to the rates of universal credit protect the incomes of those with the most severe lifelong conditions who will never be able to work. We will also guarantee that, for both new and existing claims, those in this group will not need to be reassessed in future. Those are baked into the Green Paper proposals.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The number of job vacancies is falling month on month under this Labour Government, but the number of people employed is also falling. Could the right hon. Lady admit what this means is happening in the economy?
Liz Kendall
It is quite interesting to get that question from the shadow Secretary of State, since under her Government the employment rate did not get back to where it was pre-covid—the only country in the G7 not to do so. She left 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and she left near record numbers of people—2.8 million—out of work due to long-term sickness. Businesses are still desperate to recruit. We are overhauling the system to ensure that people get the support they need.
Helen Whately
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I can answer it, if she will not. It means that businesses have stopped hiring, the growing economy that we left is being hammered by the Government’s jobs tax, and thousands of young people are leaving school and university with worse prospects than this time last year. Businesses need a Government who understand them and back them—that is what jobs depend on. She needs businesses to hire people so she can hit her employment target. What is her message to them?
Liz Kendall
The shadow Secretary of State fails to recognise that job vacancies were falling under her Government. I would say to her that we are inundated with businesses that are desperate to recruit and to get young people the skills they need. I met a whole group of businesses in Leicestershire last week who are really keen to work with us. I suggest the hon. Lady takes a good, long, hard look at her own party’s record—the number of people she left on the scrapheap—say sorry and get her own policies right first.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. We will engage stakeholders to consider the scope of the review before publishing terms of reference. In the review we will consider whether the assessment criteria effectively target the right people at the right level. We will look at the descriptors and consider the points allocated to them.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
With 300,000 people set to be plunged into poverty through the proposals in the Green Paper and 700 families set to go deeper into poverty, will the Secretary of State advise how changes to PIP will ensure that people with disabilities are living their best lives?
Sir Stephen Timms
The crucial thing is to improve the employment support for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an ambitious programme, Connect to Work, which is being rolled out this calendar year, building up to an additional £1 billion a year in employment support by the end of the Parliament. At the moment there are 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who say they would like to be in a job now, and could be in a job now, if they had the support they need. We are determined, through the changes, to provide exactly that support.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that there are currently delays with the Access to Work scheme, reflecting the very large increase in demand and applications for it over the past year or two. We are making changes to speed things up. We are also, in the Green Paper, consulting on the future of the Access to Work scheme. I would really welcome input from my hon. Friend, and perhaps her constituent as well, about the changes we should be making.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Liz Kendall
The Government are providing the stability that businesses desperately need. We are working to transform skills in this country—that is absolutely what most businesses say to me they are desperately short of. We are overhauling our job centres, so that we actually serve businesses’ needs. I would just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it was under his party that we saw the lowest business investment in the G7. We are going to overhaul that and make this the best country in which to start up and grow a business.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I just point out that the April 2024 one-year local housing allowance increase has cost an additional £1.2 billion in the last financial year, and it will cost about £7 billion over five years. We keep local housing allowance rates under review. He is right to stress the importance of those, but future decisions on them will need to be based on the Government’s priorities and reflect the difficult fiscal conditions that the Government are dealing with.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Liz Kendall
As I said in response to an earlier question, we are overhauling the way that the Department for Work and Pensions supports employers. We think it is unacceptable that only one in six businesses has ever used a jobcentre to recruit. We are changing that, including by having a single account manager for businesses, so that they do not have to tell their story time and again. We are overhauling skills in this country, reforming the apprenticeship, and extending the number of sector-based work academy programmes and short skills programmes that businesses desperately want. I know that businesses are desperately keen to engage with us, because they want to recruit, and it is about time that the right hon. Lady’s party started listening to businesses.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I have been asked by many of my Livingston constituents for reassurance on the Government’s proposed welfare changes. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that these reforms will genuinely help people into decent, secure work, all the while protecting those who clearly cannot work due to ill health or disability?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that that is what we intend to do. Our employment Bill is about ensuring that we improve the quality of jobs, give greater security to people and bring about more flexible working that will benefit sick and disabled people. We are investing £1 billion in employment support to make sure that disabled people have the chances and choices they deserve. Through our review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, we are changing the workplace to make it more inclusive, because the Labour party is absolutely about ensuring that disabled people who can work have the right to do so.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a problem over a long period with overpayments—often inadvertent—of carer’s allowance. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed Liz Sayce to undertake her independent review. I know she is making good progress, and I have regularly kept in touch with her. We are looking forward to receiving her recommendations, which will cover those who have been affected, and will recommend changes for the future, too.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
What analysis has been done of how the changes proposed in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper will affect those who rely on PIP not just for employment support, but for their daily living and mobility needs? Can my right hon. Friend please assure my constituents in Wolverhampton West who are disabled and will never be able to work that their financial support will not be restricted in a way that affects their quality of life, so that they can live with independence, and the dignity that they deserve?
Sir Stephen Timms
That is an important concern. As my hon. Friend knows, we are determined to open up opportunities for people who have been out of work, often for a long time, on health and disability grounds, and to give them the chance to get into work through much better employment support. However, we recognise that there will be people who will never be able to work. Under the proposals for claims for the new universal credit health element, from next April, a higher payment will protect those with the most severe lifelong conditions that have no prospect of improvement, and who will never be able to work. Eligibility for that will be through the work capability assessment conditions criteria.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that when young people leave education, they have the skills they need to thrive in the world of work?
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to some of the responses we have already given. The DWP and the DFE are working together closely as we change apprenticeships and change our jobcentres to ensure that the opportunities are there. Having met the hon. Gentleman, I know that his constituency is full of opportunities for young people, and we want to ensure that they get them.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Recent analysis by Health Equity North shows that more than £13 million will be stripped out of the local economy in the City of Durham every year due to PIP changes. That comes on top of the already worsened health conditions for people in the north-east due to Tory austerity. Would it not be more constructive for the Government to start by listening to the calls of disability groups and disabled people, and supporting them into work, rather than cutting the benefits first and pushing those people further into poverty?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are listening. We are consulting precisely on how best to deploy the additional £1 billion a year for employment support that we have committed to in the Green Paper. However, the assessment of those measures needs to take account of the significant impact that supporting many more people into work will have on reducing poverty.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
My constituents are extremely concerned about changes to the PIP assessment system, and particularly how they will affect people with mental health issues and fluctuating long-term conditions. Those people may not be able to show the required evidence of how their ability to function is impacted, since their experiences do not always fit within the daily living and mobility assessment criteria. Can the Minister assure me that the assessment system will be updated to take those genuine challenges into account?
Liz Kendall
As I said earlier, we are reviewing the PIP assessment process to ensure that it is fit for the future. That starts this week, with stakeholders having been invited in to discuss the scope of the review and its terms of reference. However, it is important to bear in mind that by the end of the Parliament we will still be spending £8 billion more on personal independence payments, and there will be 750,000 more people on PIP than there are now. We are making changes to focus PIP on those in greatest need, while looking at the underlying assessment process to ensure that it is fit for the future, but there will be more spending and more people on PIP by the time of the next election.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she said about resolving the issues with the application process for Access to Work. Will she also kindly reassure disabled people about the future of Access to Work, and that there will not be cuts in the budget for it?
Liz Kendall
Our reforms to Access to Work are not about savings; they are about ensuring that this brilliant service is available to more people in future. We are also looking at how it might be delivered—whether it will continue to be delivered through the Department, or through an arm’s length body—or, indeed, an organisation run by and for disabled people. This is a big opportunity to make changes to a brilliant programme, and I know that the Select Committee will engage with us on this.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the financial reparations that will be made to LGBT veterans following the Etherton review are not taken into consideration when assessing entitlement to other benefits?
Sir Stephen Timms
There is an issue with compensation payments more widely, and the right hon. Gentleman gives an example of a current case. We are looking at how we can ensure that people who receive those payments are protected.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
South Shields will be the 15th most negatively impacted constituency if the Government’s proposed welfare changes go ahead, yet there are no in-person consultation events in the north-east at all. Can my right hon. Friend please rectify that?
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
So many disabled members of society are unable to demonstrate the minimum academic requirements to get on to many courses, or to secure employment. What steps are the Government taking to support those people, so that they can demonstrate vocational and non-academic competencies, and get the jobs that they deserve?
Alison McGovern
That is exactly the point of our changes to jobcentres and the £1 billion of investment in employment support—so that we can understand the pathways to work for people who have skills and talents but, as the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps not quite the right qualifications.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
More than 9 million people in the UK are not actively seeking work, with long-term illness cited as the single largest reason. Does the Minister agree that rather than penalising those who are sick or disabled, the Government should introduce a wealth tax to fund a genuine transformation of our public services, enabling us to face the future with a healthier, happier and more productive workforce?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I refer my hon. Friend to the fair, tough choices in the 2024 autumn Budget: there are increases in inheritance tax, capital gains tax and dividends tax, and there are fair taxes on private jets and private schools. For what purpose? To fund investment in our public services, with £50 billion extra every year by the end of this Parliament. This is bringing an end to an era of austerity. Those are the fair choices that this Government have made and will continue to make.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A number of constituents of mine in Edinburgh West—former police officers, and former and current NHS staff—have come to me with concerns about the way the McCloud judgment on public sector pensions is being implemented, and worries that they will be negatively impacted at great cost. How will the Government ensure that there is no negative impact?
Torsten Bell
The implementation of the McCloud judgment—unfortunately, one of the sad consequences of botched reform under the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government before 2015—is important, and we need to take it seriously. If there are specific cases, please do write to me about them. I am aware of the issue about making sure that scheme members get the details from the NHS pension scheme, and we are working together closely to make sure members get those letters as soon as possible.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Some of the most vulnerable people in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency have profound anxieties about what the changes to personal independence payment eligibility criteria will mean for them. What steps is the Minister taking to communicate to people who will never be able to work again that the new process will not subject them to unnecessary and degrading assessments?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I recognise that there is a good deal of concern at the moment, and we want to ensure that people respond fully to our consultation set out in the Green Paper. We have said clearly in the Green Paper that we will ensure that those who will never be able to work will not go through repeated reassessments. That will be built into the system. Initially, the people who will benefit from that will be those who meet the work capability assessment’s severe conditions criteria.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Today is World ME Day, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her Ministers will recognise the up to 1.3 million people who live with ME and ME-like symptoms, and some of those with long covid. All they want is to have a normal life. I recognise what she has said about making PIP work for fluctuating conditions. Can I ask her to work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to put aside research funding, so that money is available to ensure that those who would love nothing more than to live a normal life and go to work can get better?
Liz Kendall
I will certainly discuss that with the Health Secretary. We have a joint work and health programme and team, who are really trying to join these two issues up. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) has made her point very strongly in the House, and I am sure that she will do so again at Health and Social Care questions.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Middlesbrough Disabled Supporters Association does vital work to support disabled Boro fans, but it is currently being hammered by increased bank charges. Will the Minister for Disability work across Government to help take these banks to task so that non-profit disability groups such as the MDSA can continue their important work?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am aware that there are concerns along those lines across the charity sector as a whole. I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend to address the concerns in Middlesbrough specifically.
Protection of Prison Staff
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the failure of the prison estate to protect staff from serious and sustained violence by high-risk inmates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am shocked and saddened to hear about the serious assault against a prison officer that took place on Thursday 8 May at HMP Belmarsh. My thoughts are with the family and colleagues of the brave, hard-working prison officer at this time. We will not tolerate any violence against prison officers. Prisoners who are violent towards staff will face the full consequences of their actions.
The incident at HMP Belmarsh is subject to a police investigation. As such, we are unable to comment further in any level of detail at this stage. The Prison Service has also commissioned an investigation, and its terms of reference are being finalised. It will include details of what happened and why, as well as recommendations to prevent recurrences. We will provide updates to Parliament in due course. Separately, on 22 April we announced to Parliament an independent review of the recent terrible incident where staff were assaulted by Hashem Abedi at HMP Frankland; we will make further announcements in the coming days.
Our prison officers are some of the hardest working and bravest public servants this country has. We are committed to ensuring that they are safe at work and are able to keep the public safe. We announced at last the Justice oral questions that the Prison Service has commissioned a rapid review of access to and use of self-cook areas across the prison estate, including their use in special units. The review will report back with recommendations in June. We recently announced a review of conducted energy devices—also known as Tasers—and there is a trial involving a small number of national operational response and resilience unit staff.
Body-worn video cameras, batons, PAVA spray and rigid bar handcuffs are currently available for use by staff, and protective body armour is already worn by specialist prison staff and officers in cases where there is planned use of force or where safe systems of work for the management of high-risk prisoners dictates. We have also announced a review into whether protective body armour should be made available to frontline staff, and that review will report in June. I repeat: the safety and security of our frontline prison staff is our No. 1 priority.
Robert Jenrick
Let me place on record our sympathies to the prison officer injured at HMP Belmarsh. We wish them a full recovery and thank all prison officers for their courage in the face of growing danger.
Let us be clear about what is happening in our prisons. Violence against officers has spiralled out of control. In just the past month, two of Britain’s most dangerous terrorists—Axel Rudakubana and Hashem Abedi—have launched vicious attacks on officers in two of our supposedly most secure prisons. The Secretary of State ordered a snap review into the attack at HMP Frankland, but three weeks later we have no answers and no action. Every day it goes on, the safety of officers is at risk, so I ask the Minister, when will this review conclude? Why has every prison officer exposed to dangerous inmates not already been provided with a stab vest—not in June, but today? I have spoken to officers who say that attacks with boiling water are not uncommon. Will the Minister commit to ordering the removal of every kettle from high-risk prisoners—not in June, but today?
This goes deeper than one review. Men like Rudakubana and Abedi glorify violence and dream of martyrdom, and still governors pander to them. I could not care less if Rudakubana never had a hot drink again—nor would the British public. This culture of appeasement and protecting the rights of convicted terrorists and criminals over the safety of our officers must end now. If that means keeping them in cells with just a bed, so be it. If it means no contact, no privileges, and certainly no cups of tea, so be it. Let segregation truly and finally mean segregation.
I want to say this as clearly as I can. I warn the House now that if the Government do not get a grip, a prison officer will be killed. We have had enough reviews. We need action. That is the least that prison officers deserve.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We are managing the most complex people in the most complex system. Our prison staff have to manage extremely dangerous people, and they do it with real bravery. We will do whatever it takes to keep them safe. That is why we have already taken the actions that we have.
All prisons carry out regular risk assessments and implement associated safe systems of work. If a risk is identified regarding kettle use or intelligence is received that one might be used in an assault, the kettle will be withdrawn. Frankly, kettles were used for 14 years under the previous Government’s watch, as they rightly trusted the professional skill and expertise of those running and working in our prisons. That is what we are doing now.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last week, the Justice Committee visited Wandsworth prison and noted improvements, but from a very low base. We heard that the poor reputation of some prisons, including rising violence, makes recruitment more difficult. That is the legacy of 14 years of starving prisons of resources. What are the current Government doing to improve the recruitment and retention of prison officers?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is completely correct: we inherited a prison system in crisis, where prisons were on the edge of collapse. Reducing violence in prisons is a key priority. That is why we have taken the actions we have in building new prisons and in the sentencing review: to ensure that we always have prison spaces to lock dangerous people up.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
No prison officer should go to work in fear that they may leave in an ambulance. I therefore send my sympathies and those of the Liberal Democrats to the officer injured at HMP Belmarsh. Assaults on prison staff have doubled since 2015—a reality for which the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.
The Government must now get a grip. The Prison Officers Association, which is holding its conference in my constituency this week, has requested more protective equipment. The Ministry of Justice is reviewing that, but will it accelerate the review to ensure that officers get that support now, not next month?
Recruitment and retention issues also compromise prison officers’ safety, so what are the Government doing to address that? Will not discontinuing prison officer graduate schemes such as Unlocked Graduates compromise safety? How is the MOJ robustly rehabilitating violent offenders to reduce the risk they pose to prison officers and our communities?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Immediately after the incident at HMP Frankland, the Lord Chancellor, the Prisons Minister in the other place and I met the Prison Officers Association. That was a significant discussion, and commitments were made to ensure that things were addressed properly and correctly. The Prisons Minister will be speaking shortly at the Prison Officers Association conference.
The reviews that are in place are being done in fast time, but they need to be done properly so that we can learn the lessons and take the appropriate actions. They also need input from the people who know exactly what is going on: those in the workforce and those who manage our prisons.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I confirm my interest as a member of the Justice Committee. Does the Minister agree that overcrowding in prisons is a cause of increased violence towards our prison officers and that that is a direct result of how the previous Government dealt with our prisons system? Will he please outline what steps are being taken to reduce overcrowding in our prisons?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is completely right to say that prison overcrowding makes addressing these issues far more difficult. That is why the Government have pledged to continue building the remaining 20,000 prison places, which the last Government failed to deliver. In 10 months, this Government have already added more than 2,000 prison places. The Conservative Government added 500 places in 14 years.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Surely as a minimum, any prisoner who assaults a prison officer should automatically forfeit any right to early release and all privileges. Does the Minister agree? If so, when will he introduce that change? If not, why not?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The right hon. Member is right to say that anything that happens should be dealt with immediately by the prison authorities, and that is exactly what is happening. That is why these reviews are in place: to learn the lessons so that appropriate action can be taken and appropriate steps put in place for the future, taking into account the issues she raised, among others.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
This Government inherited a violent, squalid prison estate, which makes the job of prison officers much more difficult and dangerous. The privatising of maintenance has contributed to overcrowding and the spiralling of violence towards prison officers, so can the Minister explain why contracts are being retendered? Also, will he release the report recommending more privatisation, so that we can all understand the logic behind this decision?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend raises a question about prison maintenance; that is always under review. Contracts were in place when this Government came into office that needed to be taken forward to ensure that our prisons were kept as safe as possible. Those who are assessed as posing a raised risk of violence are supported through a case management approach that is centred around the individual and addresses the underlying causes of their violence, including specific risk factors and needs, to help them manage and move away from violent behaviours.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I support the shadow Secretary of State’s request for accelerating the supply of stab vests. Can I ask the Minister for a bit more detail on the Government’s thinking on the use of Tasers? There is a long track record of Taser use in the UK, and it would seem that we could also accelerate the use of Tasers in prisons as quickly as possible.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I agree with the right hon. Member that this needs to be looked at as quickly as possible. This summer, an operational trial on Tasers will be launched, involving specialised officers, to help staff respond to high-risk incidents more effectively. The findings of the trial will inform any future decisions about the use of Tasers in the prison estate. We need to learn from what we do so that we can get it right in the future.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I thank the Minister for the working relationship he has established with the union since coming into office, but could I ask him to liaise with the POA and urgently bring forward a report, prison by prison, about staffing levels and the timescale set aside for training staff, particularly to deal with the violent prisoners they are dealing with at the moment?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am very happy to continue to work with the Prison Officers Association and other staff associations working in the prison sector to try to address the issues that my right hon. Friend rightly raises.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Minister very graciously found time in his busy schedule to meet me and colleagues recently to discuss the “68 is Too Late” campaign. Does he agree that recent events prove the tremendous pressures on our prison officers and staff, and will he give an undertaking to me and the House that, during the course of this Parliament, the terms and conditions of prison officers could be reviewed, especially with a view to the “68 is Too Late” campaign?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank the hon. Member for his question and for meeting me earlier in this Parliament to discuss these issues. Yes, these things rightly need to be kept under review, and the conversations taking place with the workforce through the Prison Officers Association and other bodies will continue to make progress on this matter.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Violence in prisons escalated for years under the previous Government, who left our prisons at breaking point. What is the Minister doing to bring down levels of violence in our jails?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. A violence reduction training module is available to all staff to help them better understand the drivers of violence and how to mitigate and manage those risks, including the use of a case management model for those at raised risk of being violent. Measures to ease prison crowding are vital for improving prison safety, as we know that crowded conditions can fuel violence. In recent years, prisons have expanded security measures, such as X-ray body scanners and airport-style enhanced gate security, to tackle the smuggling of drugs, mobile phones and other contraband that can drive violence in prisons. We must always be alert and moving things forward because the situation is forever changing.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the safety and security of our prison officers should always come before protecting the rights of convicted criminals? Will he provide stab vests and Tasers for all officers who request them?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I agree wholeheartedly that the safety and security of our prison staff must always come first and foremost. To address the other part of the hon. Member’s question, I have already indicated that a review is going on. That needs to be done properly and effectively, and we will come back and inform the House in due course.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Violence in prisons rose sharply as investment and staffing fell under the previous Government. I spoke to a prison officer who got an award for his bravery in dealing with one of the many incidents at the prison. He took his daughter to receive the award, and afterwards she begged him to stop doing the job. He no longer was a prison officer after that. What are the Government doing to halt the levels of violence and increase staffing levels?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I congratulate that prison officer for the award he got and the work he did. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 requires courts to consider the fact that serious offences were committed against emergency workers. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 doubled the maximum penalty to two years, so there are actions in place, but we need to be ever vigilant on this matter. That is why the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was right to ask the urgent question: we need to be ever vigilant and work ever harder with the brilliant people who run and work in our prisons.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, I know that unions have been raising the problem of safety and violence against staff in prisons for years under the previous Government, which underfunded them and let them down. Will the Minister commit to meet unions at the launch in July of the newly updated “Safe Inside” prisons charter developed by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of nine unions representing workers in prisons, and that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will accept the recommendations in the charter?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am happy to meet those unions and the right hon. Member on the charter. Obviously, until we see the charter, it is difficult to know where things are going on that, but I am sure that HMPPS will be proactive in working with all the associations on getting the charter right.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Ministers will recall the horrific attack on prison staff at HMP Frankland in Durham last month. While I was grateful for the Minister for Prisons’ reply to my correspondence, I noted the lack of commitment around the issuing of stab-proof vests on the high-security estate. That is a key ask from the Prison Officers Association. While I welcome the Minister’s words today when he said that it will be looked into, I ask that it is done at pace because too many prison officers are worried about whether they will come out of work in their own vehicle or in the back of an ambulance.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Where an assessment is needed for stab-proof vests now, they can be deployed, but following the recent incident at HMP Frankland, HMPPS has commissioned a review to establish whether it is necessary for prison officers to wear protective body armour routinely. The review will inform any decision on the use of protective body armour on the prison estate and will report in June. June is next month, so it is happening pretty quickly, and rightly so because this is an urgent issue.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We all understand the need to strike the right operational atmosphere and balance in prisons, but in the interests of the retention and recruitment of prison officers, which is absolutely key if our prison estate is to work effectively, I hope that—irrespective of what the review might advise—the Minister and the Department will move speedily to a position whereby the wearing of anti-stab clothing and the carrying of Tasers and other equipment becomes de facto and routine, rather than merely happening in response to gleaned internal intelligence. Otherwise, there will be a crisis in the retention and recruitment of officers.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
It is crucial that prison officers are equipped with the right protective equipment to do their job safely and securely. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that we get that right.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents work at HMP Frankland, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I met representatives of the Prison Officers Association last week. Two of the concerns they raised were about equipment. They said that during the horrific terrorist attack by Hashem Abedi, they were unable to use batons because the space was too small to wield them, and he was so enraged that pepper spray had no effect on him. They clearly need additional equipment, so what steps are being taken on that? If, as the POA told me, activist lawyers and the courts are insisting that dangerous terrorist prisoners have access to kettles and the ability to use kitchens, will the Government consider changes to primary legislation to enable those privileges to be removed from that category of prisoner?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Let me say straightaway that access to kitchens has been immediately withdrawn. A review of equipment is taking place. The point that my hon. Friend makes about the intelligence he has had from prison officers at HMP Frankland illustrates the complexity around that issue. That is why we need to take our time to get this right while moving at pace and coming back to the House fairly quickly.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Thirty-two prison staff were killed in Northern Ireland by terrorists and their criminal associates. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our prison officer staff are safe both inside and outside prisons, as we see an escalation in terrorist activity across this United Kingdom? Will he raise that issue at the five nations forum on prisons?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I can certainly commit to ensuring that that is raised at the five nations forum. The hon. Gentleman raises a sensitive and serious issue that needs to be addressed in the right and proper way. I thank him for his question.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have met constituents who are prison officers. They agree with the former Justice Secretary who said that prison officer cuts were “too much” and led to overcrowding and unsafe conditions. This Labour Government are rebuilding the trust of prison officers with a 5% pay award, whereas the Conservatives ran away from making such an award. What engagement does the Minister have with prison officers to understand what safety changes they want, particularly the use of Tasers and stab-proof vests?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the way in which the Government immediately recognised the need for an uplift in pay, in line with the independent pay report, and took action straightaway. As I said, immediately after the terrible incident at HMP Frankland, the Lord Chancellor, the Prisons Minister in the other place and I met the Prison Officers Association. Lines are open with all the other staff associations across the piece. It is important that we work with them to address this issue properly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers—he always comes to the Chamber with the answers we hope for. It was shocking to read of the violent attack on prison staff by the Southport killer, which highlights the need for greater supervision of, and security measures for, prisoners. What steps will the Government take to tighten the prison privileges system? Take away their parole, for example. Take away all their privileges. If that does not work, put them in solitary confinement. Those evil killers have forfeited any right to privileges in this world. I think it is time that the Government took steps in the right direction by ensuring that high-risk offenders do not have access to freedoms that could be used to seriously harm those who risk their lives working in our prisons.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is part of a police investigation at the moment, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. He makes a good point about the management of very dangerous people in our prisons. That is why we rely on the expertise and experience of prison staff, officers and governors.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Prison should be a rehabilitative place for the vast majority of prisoners; that is good for society, for lowering crime and for our economy. But there is a small number of prisoners in our prison system for whom it should never be about that; instead, it should be about punishment. The Southport murderer should die in jail and if he cannot be in jail without threatening prison officers, he has forfeited his rights. Does the Minister agree?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
What I do agree with is that punishment and public protection are two very important reasons why people go to prison. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I cannot comment on a live police investigation, and my hon. Friend will understand the reasons why.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and, like everybody in this House, my thoughts are with the officer who was attacked. From speaking to friends of mine who have worked in the Prison Service over the last couple of years, it is clear that this is not a new problem, and it is vital that we tackle it. Will the Minister echo his commitment to ensure that everyone, whether they are a retail worker in Harlow or a prison officer in Belmarsh, is safe at work?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I absolutely give that commitment: this Government will do all we can to make sure that people are as safe as possible when they go to work. Nobody should suffer what happened to these very brave, wonderful prison officers doing their duty; that should not happen to anybody when they go to work.
US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the US-UK trade deal, with particular reference to the impact on Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I am grateful to be able to give a statement today, following that given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security on Thursday, to update the House on the agreement we have reached with the United States and specifically to address the important circumstances of Northern Ireland.
I can confirm that we have closely considered the impacts of this agreement on Northern Ireland. I have personally spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister twice while negotiating this deal, the first time alongside the Prime Minister. I want all Northern Ireland colleagues to know that the importance of Northern Ireland in this deal, and all trade deals, is paramount to me personally, and I commit absolutely to working with any colleague from Northern Ireland on the implementation of agreements of this sort.
First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exporters can access the US market under this deal on the same preferential basis as the rest of the UK. Secondly, this deal does not affect how imports to Northern Ireland operate. US origin goods will be able to benefit from this deal where they are not at risk of entering the EU. As a result of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under this deal can avoid any unnecessary duties with established schemes such as the UK internal market scheme. Thirdly, there is a comprehensive tariff reimbursement scheme. The difference between the UK and EU duty can be claimed back, so long as it can be demonstrated that the goods did not enter the EU single market. The customs duty waiver scheme also allows at-risk duties to be waived entirely regardless of the destination, subject to an overall limit. As we have said all along, we have continued to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, which very much include those in Northern Ireland.
More broadly, I can confirm that this agreement saves thousands of jobs, gives the UK an advantage over other countries in relation to trade with the US, and confirms a process of potentially securing a much wider trade agreement between our two countries. The UK-US trading relationship, which is already worth £315 billion, is important and growing. We have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, employing around 2.5 million people across both our countries. That is why this deal was so important. Throughout our negotiations, businesses have consistently praised our calm-headed, pragmatic approach to working with President Trump’s Administration and I thank them for their engagement, their support and their advocacy.
Turning to the detail of the agreement, in no industry was the potential impact of tariffs more acute than in our automotive sector. We have therefore negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles where tariffs will be reduced from 27.5% to 10%—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say that answers to urgent questions are only meant to last for three minutes. I can see that you have quite a few more pages; I am happy to take them because I think it is important that the House knows about the deal, but we need to understand what we have granted and what we have not granted. I do not want to go back over the events of Thursday, when nobody seemed to understand the procedure of the House, and I recognise how important this issue is to hon. Members but, seriously, we should know the rules and I just wonder how this has gone wrong again.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I am incredibly grateful for your forbearance. If it is okay, I will continue to these words, given how important I know the matter is to all Members of the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. If it is so very important, why was it not presented to the House as a statement or converted? That is what I would say. I never quite understand—the other day, we could not convert them quickly enough, but today we do not want to.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I would have been more than happy to make it a statement, and I was hoping to be able to do so.
We have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles where tariffs will be reduced from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an agreement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role that this sector plays in our economy.
For steel and aluminium, this deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs on core steel products to zero. This will provide a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US. This follows our intervention last month to take control of British Steel and save thousands of jobs in Scunthorpe.
For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, this deal provides assurances that we will receive significantly preferential access in case of any new US tariffs, something that, so far, only the UK has secured. As the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, this was a priority for us.
On aerospace, we agreed that UK aerospace exports, such as Rolls-Royce engines and plane parts, will have a specific guarantee of zero tariffs as a result of this deal. This will be a huge boost to the sector, which supports 450,000 jobs in the UK.
To secure this deal, we have made agreements with the US on beef, ethanol and economic security. On beef, we have agreed a new quota of 13,000 metric tonnes, and have reduced the UK tariff on existing US imports coming through a World Trade Organisation quota limited to 1,000 metric tonnes. Crucially, I can confirm this will comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards, in accordance with the commitments that we have always made.
The increase in the quota of 13,000 tonnes compares with the 110,000 tonnes in the Australia deal negotiated by the last Conservative Government. Even more importantly, the deal is reciprocal, meaning our UK beef farmers will have unprecedented market access to the US. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef through an exclusive UK quota to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market.
On ethanol, we already import a significant amount of ethanol from the US and have agreed a duty-free quota capped at 1.4 billion litres. We are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector.
Finally, the UK and US will strengthen our co-operation on economic security and work together to combat duty evasion. We will continue to use investment screening measures already in place, and we will work together to protect our existing supply chains from any third-country investment that concerns either one of us. This Government will take a consistent, long-term and pragmatic approach to managing the UK’s relationships with third countries, rooted in our UK and global interests.
As we have made clear, the aspiration on both sides is that this is just the beginning, with the US agreeing to deepen transatlantic trade and investment further, and to progress discussions towards a transformative UK-US technology partnership. This deal has seen jobs saved and jobs won, but it is by no means job done. The siren voices of the extremes can claim to be the voice of working people all they want, but we know that on matters of action on wages, security and opportunity, it is this Government who will make the difference.
The deal comes on the back of our India trade deal earlier last week and on the promises that many Governments have made to secure trade agreements with the US. Although many people have talked about those deals, it is this Government that have got them across the line for every bit of the UK, including Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
For all his verbosity, the Secretary of State came nowhere close to addressing the issues that arise from the fact that this Government and this House do not control the trade laws of a part of this United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland was placed under the EU’s customs code, so it is therefore its tariffs, not the UK’s tariffs, that govern the imports to Northern Ireland. With the EU having no trade deal with the US or India, the resulting tariffs on imports under this deal will be higher when the goods come to Northern Ireland than when they come to GB. For manufacturing and consumers, that creates huge disadvantage and fundamentally contradicts the equal citizenship that is supposed to denote a United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State referred to the convoluted and tardy system of possible recoupment of tariffs, but the onus there is on those applying to prove that anything they produce will never go into the EU. It is no answer to Northern Ireland’s subjection to foreign trade laws, which we do not make and cannot change. The Secretary of State would not contemplate that for his own constituents, but he expects us to sup it up in Northern Ireland.
I will ask the Secretary of State about three specific issues. Under the deal, will it not be easier for US manufacturers to buy tariff-free steel from Great Britain than for manufacturers in Northern Ireland to buy the same steel from their own country to bring it into their own country? That steel will be subject to EU tariffs. How can that ever be compatible with Northern Ireland supposedly being part of the EU’s internal market? In terms of beef and the tariff-free trade within the quota that has been set, how can—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member must be coming to an end. Just because the Secretary of State has taken advantage of the Chamber, I certainly do not expect every other Member to do so—Front Benchers, yes, but the hon. and learned Member will know that he is limited to two minutes.
Jim Allister
Where there is a set quota for imports of beef, how can Northern Ireland participate in that if the UK cannot offer a reduced tariff rate in Northern Ireland? Does that mean that our beef-exporting farmers in Northern Ireland will be excluded? Surely all these trade deals expose the folly of surrendering part of our territory to foreign customs control.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for bringing this urgent question and for putting his community’s concerns on the record; I understand how strongly he will feel about them. There is much that I could say and criticise about the previous Conservative Government’s approach to a lot of things, but the approach that they took with the Windsor agreement to balance the obvious, practical problems and realities of Brexit—of leaving the single market when Ireland is in the EU and the customs union—alongside our commitments under the Good Friday agreement to observe what we have all signed up to and want to support is fundamentally better than when they threatened to break all kinds of international laws and agreements with key partners. It was the better way to find a way through them.
I absolutely accept and understand that this issue is difficult and complicated, but I can tell the hon. and learned Member that that is not just the perspective of the UK Government, in terms of working with our colleagues and ensuring that these issues are reflected in the agreements, but what we hear from the other side in these agreements. When we explain what we need to see happen around agreements such as this, we see that the US is absolutely committed to peace, to the Good Friday agreement and to the sound working of the Windsor agreement.
The hon. and learned Member has raised a number of specific questions, and I will ensure that we deal with them. We will meet with him and a delegation of MPs and ensure that we are in correspondence with him, as we have promised to be with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This approach is complicated, but it is far better than the one we briefly glimpsed in that difficult period when the Conservative Government did not have the Windsor agreement in place. Fundamentally, there is a difference between goods entering Northern Ireland and therefore entering the UK and goods entering Northern Ireland if there is a risk of them entering the single market more widely. This is a sound system to deal with that, and I accept that we must make it work.
This is not our system, but we recognise what the previous Government were trying to do. Whether the hon. and learned Member wants it or not, I offer him an absolute, unequivocal agreement that we will work with him on any concerns he or his community have to ensure that we get this right to the maximum degree possible.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s engagement with the chemicals industry?
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. Whenever any trade agreement of any sort is agreed, there will obviously be domestic impacts if our trading partners have requested further access to the UK market. That is particularly the case for the agreement on bioethanol. Senior officials from my Department have been meeting representatives of the domestic industry, and I have a personal meeting set up—on Wednesday of this week, I believe. A lot of the issues we need to address are wider than what has been agreed through this trade agreement, but our commitment to working with the domestic industry to help manage any trade-based transitions is absolute.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question, although I agree that the Government really should have offered a statement to the House on this important subject.
Of course, the House has still not yet seen the full detail of the trade agreement with the United States of America. The Secretary of State says that this is just the beginning, but there are still a great many unanswered questions about what we have so far, including what are clearly ongoing negotiations on pharmaceuticals. In his answer, the Secretary of State said that the UK will have significantly preferential rates, but what does that mean in practice? Where is the detail about what “significantly preferential rates” actually means? There are similar questions about the digital services tax.
Last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked the Trade Minister a straight question: whether this trade agreement would
“protect the special status of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 899.]
The Minister was unable to provide an answer at the time, and I remain unconvinced by what the Secretary of State has had to say today—there is still a lot of talk about the risks of goods entering the European Union. Clearly, this is a far more complex situation than the Secretary of State would like us to accept. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made clear, the EU is still hugely influential in Northern Ireland trade law. The points he made about steel, for example, were accurate and deserve clear answers.
It is clear that this deal will have a number of implications for the functioning of the dual customs regime, yet businesses in Northern Ireland have been left in the dark for too long by the lack of detail in last week’s announcement. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm what discussions he has had with his US and EU counterparts about rules of origin and the green lane in Northern Ireland. What specific measures are the Government implementing to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are not disproportionately burdened by increased costs and administrative complexities as a result of this trade agreement? Finally, given that the Prime Minister is gearing up for his surrender summit with the European Union next week, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no backsliding on Northern Ireland’s place as an integral, absolute and total part of our United Kingdom?
Jonathan Reynolds
That was a fairly odd stream of consciousness, if I am being totally honest. It appears that I have given a stronger defence of the Windsor agreement negotiated by the former Conservative Government than the Conservative party has managed today.
The shadow Minister has asked for detail. I acknowledge that, particularly when dealing with the US and the style of the US system, negotiations have a pace—a pulse—and they are perhaps different from how we would present the detail of a complete trade agreement, such as the one we agreed with India. However, I think he would acknowledge the importance of last week’s announcements, because such a significant part of our exports to the US is covered by its sectoral tariffs, not the reciprocal ones. Businesses would have had to start planning this week for a world of—in some cases—25% tariffs, which would have had major repercussions for jobs, businesses and growth in the UK. Being able to give those businesses reassurance, alongside a clear indication of the ongoing nature of the negotiations, is a significant win for British business. I hope the Opposition recognise that.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about preferential rates on pharmaceutical products. Those in the United States have not yet completed their own investigations in respect of some of the sectoral tariffs to which they have alluded, and have not announced what they are putting in place. The nature of the agreement, given that it covers the sectoral tariffs, is to recognise that we would want the UK to be in a preferential position on those as well, rather than agreeing what we have already agreed on sectoral tariffs and then seeing further sectoral tariffs announced in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the digital services tax. It is not in the agreement; it is not a part of what was announced last week.
As for the question of the special status of Northern Ireland, this is the agreement that the Conservative party struck. It manages two very difficult countervailing pressures. The Conservatives might have thought more about this during the Brexit process, but they did not. They had to resolve the issue after the agreement, and to be honest, I do not think they did a particularly bad job in reaching the compromise that Windsor represents.
Exports from Northern Ireland are covered by the preferential trade terms that we have secured with the United States. When goods come into Northern Ireland, there is a differential depending on whether they are staying in the United Kingdom or there is a risk of their entering the EU’s single market. That is what the Conservative party agreed. I think that the new degree of complexity comes from differentials between the EU’s approach to trade and trade defence, and our own, but surely we all recognise that part of what we are talking about here reflects the fact that we are not in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman again engaged in some language about the European Union.
This country did a trade deal with India last week, one that the Conservative party promised many times but never delivered. We reached an agreement with the United States in the same week. We have the EU summit coming up. Everything that we have said about how this country does not have to pick just one trading partner—it can be the best connected market in the world—is borne out by the agreements that we have signed. Every Member of this House should get behind a UK that is strong on the world stage and connected to each and every one of the major economic markets that we need to be our partners.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State first on being papped in the away end on Friday night, and secondly on, twice in one week, upholding our world-leading environmental and welfare standards. Can he assure me that as these conversations—and, indeed, conversations with future trading partners—develop, further deals will always prioritise high food standards to protect both our farmers and our consumers?
Jonathan Reynolds
Last week was a good week all told, on footballing and trade matters. You may be noting, Mr Speaker, that my voice is a little hoarse as a result.
We on the Government Benches were elected on our manifesto commitment not to alter our sanitary and phytosanitary regime and our food standards. Some people said that a deal with the United States would not be possible if we stuck to that, but we did, and we have an agreement. That proves everything we said about why that issue is so important to us.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Please bear with me, Mr Speaker, because I think that I too am losing my voice.
Parliament must be given a vote on the United States trade deal and all future trade deals, which must be properly scrutinised by Parliament. Let me remind the Secretary of State that Labour party policy was to have a vote in Parliament on trade deals. What a massive U-turn has taken place over the past few months. Trump’s trade war threatens jobs across the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland, where there is heightened uncertainty because of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impacts of Trump’s trade war on our small businesses and our living standards, and what will he do to address those impacts?
In Wokingham, where I live, Shinfield Studios employs hundreds locally. We are the Hollywood of the UK. What steps are the Government taking to protect the UK film industry from potential tariffs, and thus to protect jobs in Wokingham and in other parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Reynolds
We have discussed this issue across the Chamber on several occasions. We as a Government are not proposing any changes in how the UK and Parliament ratify treaties. I have never given the promises that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned; I have not changed my position. The position is as it always has been—that Parliament has a key role in scrutinising treaties, and any changes that require legislation or alterations in our domestic laws go through Parliament in the usual way.
I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this week there could have been announcements of job losses and restructuring that would have been very difficult for a range of important sectors in our economy, and I do not think any Member of Parliament would have wanted to see that happen because of a parliamentary process. I understand that the Liberal Democrats want us to rejoin the customs union, and that therefore trade deals with the United States or India would not be possible. That is consistent and fair, but it would have been very painful if that had been the UK Government’s position going into negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the impact of any potential issues in the global trading system on small businesses and the wider economy. They are significant for our bilateral relationship, but he will also know that the UK is very exposed to wider relationships because we are an outward-facing economy. That is why we have to be on the pitch with our sleeves rolled up, trying to find solutions for ourselves that other countries can follow.
The hon. Gentleman asks a very pertinent question about the film industry. Again, for any area where there has been the suggestion of sectoral tariffs but they are not yet in place—to be honest, it is not entirely clear what would be the subject of a tariff in the case of a film—we have language in the agreement that reflects that. We would cite that as an existing area where there is a really strong and mutually beneficial bilateral trading relationship between ourselves and the United States.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I welcome this trade deal, and particularly the beneficial impact it will have on the steel and automotive sectors. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention his discussions on ethanol, where I know some concerns have been raised. I have spoken to industry representatives, and they are confident that they have a solution that will work well for the Government’s trade deal. Notwithstanding his meeting with Ensus on Wednesday, will my right hon. Friend meet me and senior representatives of the UK’s two bioethanol producers to discuss how they can make the Government’s trade deal with the US a major success?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for his industrial expertise. I promise to have that meeting. Whenever trade arrangements have an impact on domestic industry, it is important that we work as a partner to industry in order to address that. He is right to say there are two substantial bioethanol plants in the United Kingdom that might be affected, and we are already setting up a process to work with them, as he has requested.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
This deal, as with the India deal, is good for the UK. It is particularly good for Northern Ireland, which in turn can also access the single market. However, the urgent question has some merit, because the reimbursement scheme is quite onerous, and I urge the Secretary of State and his team to look into where efficiencies could lie. Will he clarify how his Department can help Northern Ireland businesses to expand in the US and take advantage of this deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
First of all, I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, across this House, there should be unanimous agreement that trade agreements with the United States and India are in everyone’s interests. I have been a bit dismayed by some of the feedback from those on the Conservatives Benches—not Back Benchers, but Front Benchers—because we should all recognise that such deals are important not only for our bilateral trading relationships with those key markets and for the potential growth that comes from that, but because they send a message to the rest of the world about free, fair and open trade at a time when that message is very much needed.
Feedback on the performance of the duty reimbursement scheme has been significant and we are working with partners in Northern Ireland, and with the Treasury, to see how we can improve the scheme. I think people recognise the fundamentals of the scheme and what it is trying to do, but there are complaints about how easy it is to access. I recognise that and commit to working on it.
We have a whole range of export programmes, as the right hon. Gentleman might be aware, but how exciting it will be to have businesses from Northern Ireland and every part of the UK take advantage of some of the new, liberalised trading relationships that we have in place. They are not only preferential to what we have had in the past, but preferential to what other countries have. For instance, the deal with India offers access to Indian Government procurement that no other country in the world has. I am excited by that, and I hope other colleagues are too.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his vital work on this trade deal—I am feeling more and more like Jim Shannon all the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member means “the hon. Member for Strangford”.
Chris Vince
Apologies. I am feeling more and more like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all the time.
Can the Minister give the House some additional detail on how this trade deal and others will protect jobs in both Northern Ireland and Harlow? Does he agree that these trade deals mean that we avoid a trade war, which is good for everybody?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly endorse that. There are some significant headline wins from these trade agreements. Obviously, we are focused in the main on headline reductions in tariffs—whether that is whisky going from 150% to 40% under the India deal, or the removal of sectoral tariffs through the US deal—but there are other things. I have mentioned procurement from the Indian Government, but what really interests me is how we can remove frictions for smaller businesses and how we could have greater access to the US market. Trade—liberalised trade and free trade—is one of the absolute certainties for growth, for jobs and for investment. That is why I want all colleagues to be behind these deals. At times in the UK’s history, there has been a genuine cross-party consensus on the benefits that trade can bring, and I want to see every colleague on either side of the Chamber get out there and sell the benefits to businesses in their own communities.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
This trade deal with the United States does not even touch the sides of the trade deal promised by Brexiteers. Neither does it touch the sides of the damage done by our being ripped out of the customs union and the single market. I have heard the Minister talk about the challenges, but there was a compromise that Labour used to back, or certain Labour Members would back, of remaining part of the single market and the customs union. What is it about a Reform and Tory Brexit that he embraces so well?
Jonathan Reynolds
That has never been our position. It was never the position in our manifesto and it was never our position after the introduction of Brexit. The hon. Gentleman talked about the promises that Brexiteers made. I am not accountable for those and never have been, and frankly I am relieved about that. I would simply ask him whether an economy of our size—a G7 economy—can contract out trade policy to a customs union when we are not part of the political arrangements sitting behind that. I just do not see that as realistic.
I hear the hon. Gentleman not get behind, for instance, the reduction in the Indian tariff on Scotch whisky from 150% to 40%, but he should promote his own interests a bit more strongly. Regardless of how Members voted in the referendum on the European Union, they should get behind the benefits for every part of the United Kingdom, whether in the deal with India or that with the US. It will not be the same as being part of the single market—that political decision was taken in the referendum—but despite that we can build the best possible position for every bit of the United Kingdom. I think we should look to the future, rather than relive the battles of the past.
I know this will not mean much to the SNP, but the political uncertainty after the referendum while we did not have the new arrangements in place really did cause harm to the UK. It was in itself a detriment, and that is exactly why the continued obsession about the constitutional position of Scotland is not in the interests of Scottish businesses. We are looking to the future, and agreeing deals that benefit every part of the UK, and if the hon. Gentleman cannot get behind that, so what? We will defend Scotland’s interests, and make sure it is getting better access to every market in every bit of the world.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Although it pains me, as it does, to do so, I have to concede that whiskey is produced in Northern Ireland. When the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security made the statement on the Indian trade deal, he understandably placed great emphasis on the benefits to the Scotch whisky industry and indeed the UK whisky industry from that deal, but when he made the statement on the US deal, he said precisely nothing about whisky. Can the Secretary of State clarify exactly what is the current position on whisky with the US, and what is his aspiration?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, while we would all recognise the superiority of the quality of Scotch whisky, the deal with India also covers exports of gin. I was at the Beefeater factory, not far from here, last week. The deal also covers Northern Irish whiskey; Bushmills is part of this deal, too.
The right hon. Member’s question on the US is about the reciprocal tariffs put in place; obviously, no sectoral tariffs have been put in place on anything affecting whisky production. That conversation is part of the wider ongoing discussion about the reciprocal tariff, or the 10% as it is sometimes referred to. I believe there is no need for that and that it can come down, but there will have to be movement on the US side for that.
I think we could reach agreement on a whole range of tariff lines and product areas that would further deepen the trading relationship between ourselves and the US, and that is why we are committed to continuing this conversation. Of course, the UK is not a high-tariff country—as it is, what tariffs we have in place are relatively modest—and we therefore have to make sure that what we agree is in the interests of both countries. However, that will be part of the ongoing conversation, which includes the digital agreement we are seeking to strike and a whole range of other areas of interest to Members across the Chamber.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State spent about five minutes of his response evading the question that was asked: what will the impact of this trade deal be on Northern Ireland? The fact of the matter is—and he has already said it—that this will be difficult and complicated, and we have to remember that the EU has a single market to protect. It seems he is more interested in protecting the EU from the dribble of goods that goes into the EU than protecting the internal market of the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is this. The Secretary of State may say, “Well, provided that businesses can prove that parts and other things do not go into the EU, they can then get the taxes back.” But the process for doing that is so complicated, so convoluted and so time-consuming that very often businesses are without the money for a long, long time, with all the cash-flow problems. Then the Treasury spends an age getting the taxes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We do need to have a question.
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this, but I say again to him that any difficulty or complexity is not caused by this trade agreement per se. There is an arrangement in place—one that the Government support and one that, I believe, those on all sides of the House adhere to—that manages the particular situation that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. That is the reality.
Where we have a lot of tension in the global trading system and differentials between ourselves and the EU—there are going to be differentials at times—it is incumbent on us all to manage them and ensure that Northern Irish businesses and consumers are getting the benefits of the trade agreements we are seeking, and that where there is that relationship to the wider European Union, we operate all those schemes in a way that is to their maximum utilisation and efficiency. I recognise that there are complaints about the duty reimbursement scheme, and we have worked with colleagues on that, but it is not these trade deals that caused that complexity; it was the particular situation that the previous Government needed to find a solution to—and, to be fair to them, they did find a solution. We, on all sides, are committed to honouring and making sure it is working.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
As skilfully drafted as the Windsor framework certainly was, it could not possibly have fully anticipated President Trump and his tariffs, or the prospect of an EU-US trade and tariff war. Does the Secretary of State understand how concerned small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland are? Suddenly, they are placed, potentially, at the epicentre of that trade war. It is all very well to say that they can claim back the differential in tariffs, but the bureaucracy involved in such an exercise, as the Secretary of State will understand, is substantial and significant. What will he now do to mitigate it?
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand the reasonable point the right hon. Gentleman is making—that perhaps large parts of the global trading system did not anticipate the position we find ourselves in today—but I believe it was drafted recognising that there would likely be divergence in trade policy between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and that is what we are seeking to manage. He mentions—I understand this, because it is the feedback we receive in the Department as well—things like the complexity and the functioning of the duty reimbursement scheme, and how it needs to work better. I hear that from businesses in Northern Ireland and I am hearing it very clearly in the Chamber today. Obviously, that relates to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and a Treasury responsibility, but I give him an absolute assurance that we are listening and we are committed to doing this. But it is incumbent on all of us to make it work.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his extended answers. In his original answer, he said that he had spoken with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister twice. Were they supportive of the Government’s approach? Did they raise any concerns? How were those concerns mitigated? Did they agree to the final deal? With regard to the EU re-set negotiations of 19 May, are the Government engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive parties?
Jonathan Reynolds
I regularly meet all colleagues across the United Kingdom to keep them updated on matters of trade. Those were specific meetings in relation to what was being negotiated with the US. The final decision on any trade agreement is with myself and the Prime Minister. We do not seek formal agreement per se from colleagues in the devolved Governments, but we keep them informed as to what we are negotiating, the kinds of issues coming up on the other side and how we deal with that. It is not for me to reveal the content of those conversations, but the kind of reasonable concerns being aired in the Chamber today, about how things like the reimbursement system works and the feedback from Northern Ireland businesses, were of course a part of that conversation. We committed again, as I have done here at the Dispatch Box, to work with them on effective solutions to those problems.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State says that free trade is essential for growth. What a shame that the trade across the UK is still so badly affected by us not being part of the customs union. When Labour was in opposition, he called for
“a proper role for Parliament in how trade deals are ratified”,
and argued that there needed to be
“a much higher level of scrutiny than we are seeing now”
under the previous Government. There are clearly many questions about how the deal will affect businesses in Northern Ireland. We have seen how the Australia trade deal has been allowed to undermine British farmers across the UK, animal welfare and food standards, thanks to a lack of parliamentary scrutiny under the Conservatives. Farmers in my constituency are worried that American agribusiness will undercut them with inferior meat. I hear what the Minister said about upholding SPS—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can the hon. Lady get to the question, please?
Caroline Voaden
Will the Minister provide reassurance that Members of this House will be given the opportunity to fully scrutinise and vote on the new trade deal with the United States?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member will have heard my earlier answers. I believe that Parliament should play a role in scrutinising trade legislation, and indeed any international agreement, but it is not the case in the United Kingdom that we have formal “up or down” votes on any treaty. We vote on the implementation of those agreements, and the responsibility for negotiating and agreeing those is with the Government, rather than Parliament. I am not aware of any substantive proposal to change that system. It is certainly not something that the UK Government today are committed to doing.
The hon. Member talks about the impact of leaving our existing trade relationships in the customs union. That was part of that referendum. I understand how people feel intensely about that. [Interruption.] People have different interpretations of why they voted. We can relive the argument forever or we can focus on the future, on reducing barriers to trade and on the kinds of agreements delivering advantages for every part of the UK, and that is exactly what we are doing. Had we in this case still been part of the customs union, there would be no breakthrough with the US or the India trade deal. All colleagues need to balance up the two things alongside each other. In relation to the automotive sector, that lack of a breakthrough would have meant significant job losses this week in the United Kingdom, and that would have been very painful for all of us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With what I am sure will be a pithy final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You have set me a challenge, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for securing this urgent question. It is so important to talk about this issue in this place. It has caused considerable problems for my Strangford constituents. In particular, I mention three distilleries—Echlinville, Rademon and the Hinch—but many other businesses are affected, too. How does the Minister plan to address the tariff differentials that may arise for Northern Ireland following the UK-US trade deal? It may see any EU retaliatory tariffs on US goods being applied to US goods entering Northern Ireland, potentially creating an Irish sea border for US goods.
Jonathan Reynolds
There is only one Member for Strangford, and no one could mistake him for anybody else in asking a question of that sort. He asks about the definition of whether goods are at risk of entering the single market when they come into Northern Ireland. That is based on a percentage differential in the tariff between the United Kingdom tariff rate for a good or tariff line and that for the EU. I believe that a 3% differential puts a good coming into Northern Ireland potentially at risk and therefore considered for the higher tariff up front. In this case, that would be the EU one, and it would then be reimbursed. I understand that it is a more complex position for businesses in his constituency than for many other things, but we have to make this work. We have to be committed to working with businesses in his area, in Northern Ireland and in the wider United Kingdom, and specifically with political leaders, to ensure that we are getting this right. I am hearing, and I have heard many times, about how we can make that system smoother, more reliable and more efficient. We will take that away and work with our colleagues to do that.
However, the system in place is balancing many different competing pressures, and there are no obvious or easy solutions. I was a parliamentarian when we went through all the potential outcomes when a different party was in charge. Let us make it work. Let us listen where we need to improve things, but let us recognise that this agreement fundamentally addresses some of the core problems that existed when this country chose to leave the European Union.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Secretary of State for his very detailed answers this afternoon.
Immigration System
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, Mr Speaker has noted that details of the White Paper have been reported in the media since Sunday morning. As Mr Speaker has said previously, it is important that these policy announcements are made in the first instance in this House, and not in the media. Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
It is clear to Mr Speaker that, for whatever reason, that principle is no longer routinely observed by the Government, and he will be giving further consideration to what might be possible in order to regularise the situation.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s White Paper on restoring control over the immigration system.
Five months ago, the figures were published that showed net migration had reached a record high of more than 900,000 under the last Conservative Government —a figure that had quadrupled in the space of just four years. That was the consequence of specific Government choices made from 2020 onwards, including introducing what was effectively a free market experiment on immigration: encouraging employers to recruit from abroad and loosening controls in different areas, but without any requirement to tackle skills and labour shortages here at home. Those choices undermined the immigration system and the economy too.
This Government are making very different choices. We made it clear at that time, just as we set out in our manifesto, that this Government would restore order and control to the immigration system, not only bringing net migration substantially down, but boosting skills and training here at home. The White Paper we are publishing today does exactly that. It is built on five core principles: first, that net migration must come down, so the system is properly managed and controlled; secondly, that the immigration system must be linked to skills and training here in the UK, so that no industry is allowed to rely solely on immigration to fill its skills shortages; thirdly, that the system must be fair and effective, with clearer rules in areas such as respect for family life, to prevent perverse outcomes that undermine public confidence; fourthly, that the rules must be respected and enforced, including tackling illegal and irregular migration and deporting foreign criminals; and finally, that the system must support integration and community cohesion, including new rules on the ability to speak English and the contribution that people can bring to the UK.
Our United Kingdom is an interconnected and outward-looking nation. Our history and our geography mean that for generations, British people have travelled overseas to live and work, and people have come to the UK to study, work, invest or seek refuge. British citizens draw on heritage from all over the world, and that has made us the country we are today. Through many years, our country has been strengthened by those who have come here to contribute, from the doctors in our NHS to the entrepreneurs founding some of our biggest businesses and those who came through generations to work in jobs from coal mining to caring for our loved ones or serving in our armed forces—people often coming to do some of the most difficult jobs of all.
Our trading nation, global leading universities and strong historical international connections mean that migration will always be part of our country’s future as well as our past. But that is exactly why immigration needs to be properly controlled and managed—and it has not been.
Overseas recruitment shot up while training in the UK was cut. Lower skilled migration soared while the proportion of UK residents in work plummeted. In 2019, 10% of skilled work visas went to non-graduate jobs. By 2024, that had risen to 60%. Employers were even given a 20% wage discount if they recruited for shortage jobs from abroad, actively discouraging them from paying the going rate or training here at home. Educational institutions were allowed to substantially expand the number of overseas students without proper compliance checks. Social care providers were encouraged to recruit from abroad with no proper regulation, so we saw a serious increase in exploitation, deeply damaging for those who came to work here in good faith, and for other workers and responsible companies who were being undercut.
The rules and laws that are supposed to underpin the immigration system were too often ignored. By 2024, returns of people with no right to be in the UK were down by more than a third compared with 2010, and of course criminal gangs were allowed to build an entire smuggling industry along our borders, undermining security and creating a crisis in the asylum system. Later this year, we will set out further reforms to asylum and border security, and to tackling illegal and irregular migration, building on the new counter-terrorism powers in the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Bill that is before the House this evening, because no one should be making these dangerous crossings on small boats.
This White Paper sets out how we restore control to the legal migration system so that it is sustainable and fair, and works for the UK. First, we are overhauling the approach to labour market policy, so that for the first time, we properly link the immigration system to skills and training here in the UK. Where there are skills or labour shortages in the UK, immigration should not always be the answer to which employers turn. The long-term failure to tackle skills shortages, bring in proper workforce planning, get UK residents back into work, or improve pay, terms and conditions here at home is bad for our economy as well as for the immigration system, because it undermines productivity and growth. We will lift the threshold for skilled worker visas back to graduate level and above, removing up to 180 different jobs from the list and increasing salary thresholds. For lower-skilled jobs, access to the points-based system will be limited to jobs that are on a new temporary shortage list, including jobs that are critical to the industrial strategy, but that access will be time-limited; there must be a domestic workforce strategy in place, and employers must act to increase domestic recruitment.
We will also expect workforce strategies to be drawn up more widely in higher-skilled areas where there is overreliance on recruitment from abroad. To support that work, we will establish a new labour market evidence group. It will bring together skills bodies from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Department for Work and Pensions; the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council; and the Migration Advisory Committee to gather and share evidence on shortage occupations in different parts of the country, and to highlight the role that skills, training, pay and conditions and other policies can play in improving domestic recruitment, so that increased migration is never again the only answer to the shortages that the economy faces.
This new approach means that we also need to act on social care. The introduction of the social care visa led not only to a huge increase in migration, but to a shameful and deeply damaging increase in abuse and exploitation. When proper checks were finally brought in, 470 care providers had their licence to sponsor international staff suspended, and 39,000 care workers were displaced. Overseas recruitment to care jobs has since dropped, but it must not surge like that again. It is time we addressed the domestic issues, including with a proper fair pay agreement, to show respect to people who do some of the most important jobs in the country. We are therefore ending overseas recruitment of care workers. It will continue to be possible to extend existing visas, and to recruit displaced care workers and people on other visas, with working rights, who are already in the UK.
Alongside the new visa controls and workforce strategies, we will increase by 32% the immigration skills charge paid by employers who recruit from abroad. That money will be invested through the spending review in supporting skills and training here in the UK. We will ensure that Britain continues to attract the brightest and best global talent by enhancing visa routes for very high-skilled individuals, top scientific and design talent, and people with the right experience to support growth in key strategic industries.
International students bring huge benefits to the UK, supporting our world-leading universities and bringing in top talent and investment, but we will strengthen compliance requirements and checks to prevent visa misuse. Too many people on the graduate visa are not doing graduate jobs, so we will reduce the unrestricted period from two years to 18 months. Those who want to stay will need to get a graduate job and a skilled worker visa, so that we ensure that they are contributing to the economy.
Our rules on work visas are based on the contribution we expect people to make when they come to our country, and we will consult later this year on new earned settlement and citizenship rules that apply the same approach. We will extend the principles of the points-based system, doubling the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years, but there will be provisions to qualify more swiftly that take account of the contribution people have made. As the ability to speak English is integral to everyone’s ability to contribute and integrate, we will introduce new, higher language requirements across a range of visa routes, for both main applicants and their dependants, so that family, too, can work, integrate and contribute.
The system for family migration has become overly complex. Policies have increasingly developed around case law, following court decisions, rather than being part of a co-ordinated framework set out by Parliament. We will set out a new, clearer framework to be endorsed by Parliament, which will include clarification of how article 8 rules should be interpreted and applied, to prevent confusion or perverse conclusions.
We will review current community sponsorship schemes that support recognised refugees, and we will continue to take action against trafficking and modern slavery. We will shortly appoint a new Windrush commissioner to ensure that the lessons from Windrush continue to be learned, and so that the Home Office ensures that its standards are upheld.
The rules must be respected and enforced across the board. We will bring in stronger controls where there is evidence of visa misuse. We are rolling out e-visas and digital ID. There will be better use of technology to monitor when people are overstaying on their visa, and to support an increase in illegal working raids. Already since the election we have increased returns, and we will go further.
Those who come to our country must abide by our laws, so we will develop new procedures to ensure that the Home Office is informed of all foreign nationals who have been convicted of offences—not just those who go to prison—so that we can revoke visas and remove perpetrators of a wide range of crimes who are abusing our system.
We are already reducing the number of visas granted this year; updated figures will be published before the end of the month. We are increasing returns. Over 24,000 people were returned in our first nine months in government; that is the highest number of returns in a nine-month period for eight years. The impact of the changes regarding skilled worker visas, care worker visas, settlement, students and English language requirements is expected to be a reduction in visas of around 100,000 a year. On top of that, the new workforce strategies, immigration skills charge and family and asylum reforms will bring numbers down, too. As the Prime Minister has said, where we need to go further to restore a sustainable system, we will.
Throughout our history, Britain has been strengthened by people coming here to start new businesses, study at universities, contribute to our cultural and sporting excellence and do some of the toughest jobs in our country. However, to be successful, effective and fair, our immigration must be properly controlled and managed. The White Paper sets out how we will restore control, fairness and order to the system, how we will continue to bring net migration down, and how we will turn the page on the chaos and failure of the past. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—not that it was necessary, given the extensive leaks and pre-briefing. The Prime Minister claimed all of a sudden this morning that he wants to control immigration. I must say, it came as something of a surprise to me. He seems to have undergone a miraculous conversion, and has apparently repudiated everything he has ever believed. Perhaps he is doing what he always does: saying whatever he thinks people want to hear at any given point in time. Perhaps he sees his minus 36% approval rating, and this White Paper is his desperate response.
We know what the Prime Minister really thinks about immigration, because he has often told us. He once described immigration law and border control as racist. He signed a letter opposing the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists. He pledged that he would reintroduce full free movement of people, and he sermonised enthusiastically about the benefits of migration. He even said that the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre should be closed down. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us if she will be following the Prime Minister’s advice on that one.
Given what the Prime Minister really thinks about immigration, it is no surprise that this Labour Government have presided over the worst start to a year for the number of illegal immigrants crossing the English channel in history; that number is up 30% since the election last year. It has been the worst start to a year ever, and it happened under this Labour Government.
It is also no surprise that this plan is so weak that it barely scratches the surface. On its first page, it seeks to create a false impression. It says—the Home Secretary repeated this—that
“visa applications are down…40%”
since the election, implying that that is somehow down to the Government. Why are visa applications actually down by 40%? Because of the changes made by the last Government, which came into force in April 2024. From the previous peak, net migration is already forecast to reduce by about half a million.
If the Home Secretary is all of a sudden so keen on reducing migration, will she explain why she suspended the Conservative plan to increase the family visa threshold to £38,000? That was due to come into force last month. When will that change now be introduced? The truth is that this plan is weak and will have little impact. The Home Secretary admitted on Laura Kuenssberg’s programme yesterday that the measures will reduce net migration by only 50,000, which is just one 10th of the impact of the previous Conservative changes.
The honest truth is that we need to go much further than this White Paper does. Immigration needs to come down a lot more. Under new leadership, the Conservative party is taking a new approach. [Interruption.] Labour Members can vote on this later, if they are so keen. High immigration has put pressure on housing, public services, social cohesion and the economy. Mass low-wage, low-skilled migration undermines our economy’s productivity and costs other taxpayers money, because low-wage migrants consume services that cost the Exchequer more than they pay in tax, particularly where there are dependants, so we need to go much further.
That is why later today the House will vote on two Conservative proposals in amendments to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. [Interruption.] I can see Labour Members are excited about the prospect. The first amendment would create a binding annual cap on migration, to be set and voted on democratically by this Parliament. It would allow full democratic parliamentary control over migration numbers, deliver complete transparency and ensure that immigration is drastically reduced. I see the Minister for Border Security and Asylum talking enthusiastically on the Front Bench; I assume that means that she will support the measure.
The second amendment would repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. We would not just tinker with article 8, as the Home Secretary says she will, but stop foreign criminals, and others who have no right to be here, abusing human rights laws in UK courts, including article 3. I have a simple question for the Home Secretary.
Chris Philp
I will try anyway. If the Home Secretary is really serious about controlling immigration, will she vote later today for the immigration cap, and will she vote to repeal the Human Rights Act for all immigration matters?
Yvette Cooper
I must have missed a bit of the shadow Home Secretary’s response—the bit, maybe at the beginning, when he apologised to the House and the country for his party’s policies, which quadrupled net migration in just four years. He tells us his concerns about the level of migration; his party is responsible for that huge increase in net migration.
I must have also missed the bit when the shadow Home Secretary confessed that from the point at which he became an immigration Minister in 2020—when all these policies were introduced—to the point at which the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), finished being immigration Minister in 2023, net migration rose from 170,000 a year to 870,000 a year. I must have missed that confession, and that apology, which the shadow Home Secretary should have made. Until he admits his failure and apologises for the damage and chaos that he and his party caused, no one will take seriously a single word that he says.
The shadow Home Secretary referred to visa changes that were made before the election. We supported changes made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), but he had to reverse some of the changes that the shadow Home Secretary made when he was an immigration Minister.
As for a cap, the White Paper provides for caps on low-skilled migration on the temporary shortage list. The right hon. Gentleman’s targets and caps are as meaningless as all the other ones that his party introduced when they were in government. Indeed, let me quote from the time of the Conservative Government’s reforms that caused a lot of these problems:
“I especially thank the Home Secretary for removing the annual limits on work visas and on international students: I lobbied for both”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 815.]
That was the current Leader of the Opposition, so the idea that that lot have anything to offer is like people who burgle your house and then turn up the next day and offer to sell you a dog. If the Conservatives are serious about making the changes and serious about tackling small boats, they should vote for our counter-terrorism powers to tackle the smuggler gangs that the right hon. Gentleman and the other right-wing parties have repeatedly voted against. That is not serious. This Government are.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am proud to represent the diverse and vibrant constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green—a place where so many people from around the world have chosen to make their home and a place where so many people contribute to our community, day in, day out. Since this announcement, I have been contacted by several constituents who are currently on a work visa and looking at their path for a way towards indefinite leave to remain. They are understandably worried about where this uncertainty leaves them. They are worried about their future plans. One even told me that they were so worried that they were considering leaving the UK, because their settled status here is in jeopardy, so can the Home Secretary please outline whether this policy applies to people who are already living and working in the UK, or will it apply just to new visa applicants?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that there are people working in all kinds of jobs across the country and contributing to our economy and to our communities who have travelled here from all over the world, and that is hugely important. We will set out further details of the earned settlement and citizenship reforms later this year, and we will consult on them. There will be plenty of opportunity for people to comment on and consider the detail, but it is important that we extend the sense of contributions and the points-based system to those reforms as well. We have also said that we will maintain the current five-year route for those who have come on a dependant visa or a family visa, as part of maintaining families.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Immigration is personal to all of us, whether we are immigrants ourselves, the descendants of immigrants, or benefit from the skills, talents and cultural richness that immigrants bring. I am immensely proud that our country took in my nan, aged 18, when she was fleeing the Nazis in 1939. I am also hugely grateful that the senior surgeon who did my dad’s kidney transplant operation brought his skills and talents to our country, having been born elsewhere.
Yes, the Conservative Government made a total mess of our immigration system. Their chaotic and dishonest approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing targets shattered public trust and left the system in tatters. The line I agree with most in the Government White Paper published this morning is that the immigration system must be “fair and effective”. What the Conservatives left behind was nowhere close to either. Change is needed, and that means rebuilding an immigration system that works for our country and our economy, while treating everyone with dignity and respect.
Of course, that must be coupled with a clear plan to make it easier to recruit British workers to fill those vacancies instead, and I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on how her Government will achieve this to ensure that these changes do not have unintended consequences for our economy and, in particular, for our health and social care systems. Will this include finally implementing the Lib Dem proposals for a higher minimum wage for carers to reflect the skill levels really involved in caring professions?
We also need to move away from the chaotic chopping and changing of immigration rules that we saw under the Conservatives, so will the Home Secretary provide further clarity on when these changes will be brought forward, including a clear timetable for any changes to visa rules, so that employers—and the workers and their families, who we are talking about today—can plan for their future?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right that we need to boost training and skills here in the UK alongside these stronger controls. On social care, we will introduce a fair pay agreement. It is important that the vital jobs of those who look after our loved ones in social care are properly respected. On the timetable, some of these measures will require primary legislation and further consultation, while others will be brought in more swiftly—including, for example, some of the changes to the skilled worker thresholds. To give her an example of the approach we want to take, construction workers will be on the temporary shortage list because they are clearly crucial to growth in our economy. However, that has to happen alongside respect for the workforce strategy, which is why the Education Secretary has set out proposals to train 60,000 more construction workers here in the UK.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
This Labour Government inherited disorder at the border: a broken system where criminal gangs, dodgy employers and fake colleges too often decided who came into this country. Will the Home Secretary give the courts the powers to deport and the universities and colleges the resources to train our young people, and will she have a system that encourages the brightest and the best to come to this country and rebuild Britain?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to make the procedures easier for the deportation of foreign criminals and for increasing returns of those who have no right to be in the UK. That is why we will change the procedures that we inherited. He is also right that we need to ensure that the best international talent can come swiftly to the UK. That is why we will be setting out further reforms for the highest talent routes as well.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Home Secretary, in her statement, said that the visa changes she is putting in place will reduce net migration by 100,000 people a year. The House of Commons Library has figures that say the visa changes that I brought in would reduce net migration by 300,000 people per year—so would she concede that her proposals are only a third as effective as mine?
Yvette Cooper
Nice try! The right hon. Member was in the Cabinet that massively increased net migration and pushed the numbers up. He then belatedly had to attempt to restrict and reverse some—but just some—of the changes that he and his colleagues had previously endorsed and put before the country. The fact is he still never tackled the Conservatives’ fundamental approach: the free market experiment of encouraging people to recruit from abroad but never supporting training and conditions here in the UK. Fundamentally, that meant that he was desperately trying to close the door and deal with the problems without any proper strategy and without understanding why we needed those links with skills and training in the first place. We have to recognise the important way in which migration has always supported our economy, and that it will continue to do so, but it has to be properly controlled and managed—he did not do that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Tories promised net migration in the tens of thousands and left it at about 1 million. Reform’s predecessor, the UK Independence party, promised that Brexit would fix immigration—that didn’t work out, did it? The Home Secretary is therefore absolutely right to take a reasoned, evidence-based approach to fixing the immigration system. I welcome her emphasis on the contribution that immigrants make—national health service workers in Newcastle from different backgrounds and those starting up great businesses in this country must still feel welcome—but she is also right to critique our country’s dependence on immigration for growth and the impact that has on productivity. Will she say a little more about how she will break that link?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the response to any labour or skills shortages is too often simply to turn to migration without addressing their causes—which might relate to pay and conditions, lack of training, lack of workforce planning and a whole series of different things—all that happens is that UK productivity falls. Alongside ensuring that we get the skills we need and that we benefit from international talent, we must invest to tackle domestic training and skills failures. That is what the increase in the immigration skills charge will help us to do.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Surely the most immediate challenge is illegal migration across the channel, which is enraging our constituents, but the Home Secretary’s Government have kicked away the tough deterrent measures that they inherited from the previous Government. There are three critical measures that she should take: the first is to work incredibly closely with all our European partners; the second is to look hard at international conventions, particularly the 1951 Geneva convention; and the third—and in many ways the most important—is to work on the upstream problems at source. Increasingly, people are migrating in large numbers from the Sahel in north Africa, fleeing violence, starvation and extreme poverty. Does she accept that she and her European counterparts must lift their ambition and move towards a modern-day equivalent of a Marshall plan if we are to solve this long-term and increasingly serious issue?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Member that we must do more upstream to tackle some of the causes of dangerous journeys. We clearly need to act on the criminal smuggler gangs who are exploiting people and undermining our border security—that is why the legislation on counter-terrorism powers that we will debate tonight is so important—but we also need to do much more work with European partners. We have been working with France, for example, to get it to agree to change its rules so that, for the first time, it will start to intervene in French waters to prevent dangerous boat crossings. I agree with him about the importance of the Sahel and working upstream. We have established a new joint unit between the Home Office and the Foreign Office in order to do some of the work to which he refers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
If I am to get in as many Members as possible, we will need pithy questions and short answers, please. For a masterclass in that, I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I represent a constituency that is enriched and sustained every day by people who have come from overseas to make their home here, especially those who came as members of the Windrush generation. It is important that they hear from this place that they are not only valued and appreciated but part of us. Last week, the Office for Students published another report on the precarious situation facing our universities. This announcement includes a levy on universities in relation to their international students. What engagement has the Home Secretary had with her counterpart at the Department for Education on the impact of her measures on the financial sustainability of universities?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. British citizens have heritage from all over the world, and people came here as part of the Windrush generation. We will shortly appoint the Windrush commissioner to ensure that Home Office standards are upheld and that that contribution, through generations, is properly recognised and respected in our country. The White Paper sets out that we will explore the international student levy. That work, which is being led by the Education Secretary, will consider how we can ensure that investment goes into supporting skills in the UK.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Home Secretary spoke about attracting the best and the brightest to this country. One area in which our universities do that is the medical profession. During the covid crisis and the rebuilding after it, a lot of the people on the frontline were immigrants. When she looks at the resettlement and reassurance of existing migrants, will she consider indefinite leave to remain for those who worked through that crisis?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point about the contribution made by those who saved lives and cared for our loved ones during the pandemic—one of our most difficult periods. We need to respect and recognise those contributions. There will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to contribute to the consultation on changes to the earned settlement and citizenship rules.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
A report on the economic impact of the University of Edinburgh found that its education exports alone amounted to £1.8 billion in the 2021-22 academic year. What engagement will my right hon. Friend have with the university to ensure that the proposals brought forward today do not have any adverse impact on our world-class universities and their local economic impacts?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that international students make a huge contribution to our country and our economy and that universities are often very important to the local economy as well, but it is really important that proper standards are met. There have been cases of some institutions not meeting the right high standards of compliance, and evidence that recruitment was not meeting high standards and people were misusing the visas, coming for other reasons and not completing courses. We need those standards to be met, because that is how we will underpin and maintain confidence in international students and in our world-class universities, which is hugely important to our economy.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
There was very little of substance in the details of the Government White Paper that came out over the weekend, and the Home Secretary has rather confirmed that impression today, but there are two big-ticket items on which my local authority and my local training providers would like some answers. First, from where will the uplift in training be financed and when will that money arrive? I am sure Trowbridge college in my constituency will be very interested to hear about that. Secondly, does the Home Secretary anticipate that authorities providing statutory services will pay for the fair pay agreement, which presumably means council tax payers, or will she be providing the money out of the block grant?
Yvette Cooper
On training, this Government are already going considerably further than the previous Government, who allowed training to be cut, including in adult education and adult skills, at the same time as net migration figures were substantially increasing. Already we are funding training for 60,000 more construction workers as part of our growth plans and workforce strategies, and the White Paper—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will love the chance to read it and see all the substance in it—sets out proposals for a 32% increase in the immigration skills charge that will go into skills and training in the UK.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
When serious legislation that could be contentious is being introduced, it is critically important that Ministers use language carefully. The Prime Minister referred to “an island of strangers”, reflecting the language of Enoch Powell. Does the Home Secretary realise how shockingly divisive that could be?
Yvette Cooper
The point that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made is that people need to be able to integrate, to become part of our communities and to share with our neighbours, and that means being able to speak English. That is very important, and it is why we are increasing the English language standards, not just for main visa applicants but for partners, spouses and adult dependants, because too often people unable to speak English have been isolated in communities, and that can also lead to greater exploitation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Today’s announcement, with all that appalling, dehumanising language from the Prime Minister, could not be more contrary to Scotland’s national interest. We have a population and demography crisis just now. We cannot get an adequate working-age population to look after our older cohort. Why is the Home Secretary introducing an immigration system that is contrary to everything that we need in Scotland? Why does she not give us the powers to grow our economy and public services, and why does she not give a jot about Scotland?
Yvette Cooper
I gently say to the hon. Member that a series of labour market issues needs to be addressed. As he will know, Scotland’s labour market faced challenges when net migration was at 900,000—that level of net migration did not solve the issues across Scotland’s labour market. There is a serious issue about what should happen about skills, training and different workforce strategies across Scotland. We have been clear that the skills’ bodies and the devolved Governments from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to be part of the labour market evidence group, so that we can have a broad strategy that will properly deal with the labour market challenges that we face.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on the contribution of migrants; historically, the city of Liverpool has been made up of migrants. I welcome the White Paper and her statement today, in particular linking migration to labour market strategy, because migration is a key economic lever of the state. Does she agree with me that it is not a left or right issue, but part of the loss of trust in democratic politics, and that we need an asylum and immigration system that has, most importantly, democratic consent?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of trust and confidence, because when people feel that the system is not working or is not under control, or that there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality, trust is undermined. For generations, people have valued the work of those who have come to the UK in order to work, contribute, study and be part of communities, but it has to be controlled and managed. It has not been controlled and managed, and that has undermined confidence too.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I know a gimmick when I see one, and we have seen one here today. The Home Secretary says that net migration must come down, but she does not say to what level or by when. What does she think the cap should be?
Yvette Cooper
I am not sure the right hon. Lady’s Front-Bench team can answer that question. We have made clear that net migration needs to reduce substantially. We had years of targets from the previous Government which all failed and were all over the place, which undermines confidence. We should address the issue of confidence by taking a different approach: step by step, we will make progress and deliver, rather than just adding to the talk and the rhetoric.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Lancaster University, like all of the leading universities in the UK, relies on operating in a global market, not just for international students, but for academic staff. Many of those staff have been in touch with me already today and they are feeling upset by some of the language that has been used, particularly around the use of the phrase “island of strangers”. Will the Home Secretary say something to my constituents who very much contribute to the economy of Lancaster and to our cultural enrichment?
Yvette Cooper
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the words in my statement: in recent years and through many generations, people have come to the UK, contributed to and built our communities, and they are part of the country that we are today. That is who we are and it is important. It is important that we ensure that when people come to the UK, they can speak English so that they can talk to each other and be part of a community, because in areas where people have not been able to speak English, we have often seen some of the worst exploitation. This is about recognising the importance of migration, but ensuring that the system is fair.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The Home Secretary will be aware that five years ago I warned that if we did not leave the European convention on human rights and immediately deport those who arrived in Dover via small boats, there would be an invasion. Sure enough, I was right. Already today, a further 600 young men have been processed through Dover, perhaps the odd Iranian terrorist among them—who knows? [Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government’s policy of “smash the gangs” is a complete and total failure? If that is the case, why should we believe anything else that they say?
Yvette Cooper
No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings: they undermine our border security and put lives at risk. Criminal gangs are making a fortune, profiting from organising these dangerous boat crossings. That is why we need counter terrorism-style powers to be able to go after the gangs. There is the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his party to vote for those counter-terrorism powers tonight, so that we can strengthen our border security. Previously, he and his party voted against those counter-terrorism powers. I think we need counter terrorism-style powers to strengthen our border security in order to be able to go after those criminal gangs. Does he?
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Opposition like to talk about and obsess over caps. Does the Home Secretary agree that it might have been sensible for the previous Government to place a cap on the number of Home Secretaries they had to churn through to deliver their failed open-border project?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. I think the previous Government had eight Home Secretaries in the space of eight years, and two of them were the same person.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Without a third country such as Rwanda, can the Home Secretary tell the House where illegal immigrants whose country of origin cannot be established, because they have destroyed their documentation, will be deported to? Is it the case that they cannot be deported, and anyone who exploits that loophole can stay here with impunity?
Yvette Cooper
This Government have increased returns since the election; there have been 24,000 returns since the election. That includes an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum cases. It also includes action we are taking to deal with people who claim to have lost their papers and to ensure that we can deliver those returns. We will continue to support other policies, including working with the EU on issues around returns hubs. The Conservatives had two years to run their Rwanda scheme. They spent £700 million and sent four volunteers. That was a waste of money, a failure for the taxpayer and a failed delivery.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome this statement, particularly the measures outlined to streamline deportation processes and ensure that they are fast, fair and effective. Can the Secretary of State remind the House what happened to levels of removals, including of foreign national offenders, on the Conservatives’ watch?
Yvette Cooper
Returns dropped by around a third under the previous Conservative Government. I think that is very damaging; I think the rules should be respected and enforced. We have inherited a system in which it seems the only people they tried to remove or to get information on were those who had been convicted and had prison sentences. We believe that we need information much more widely and a faster process to ensure that the rules and the laws are upheld.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Given that lengthy A&E, cancer treatment and ambulance waiting times in Cumbria are a direct result of the lack of social care workers, meaning that our hospitals are full to bursting, what assessment has the Home Secretary made of the damage that this policy could do to patients and NHS workers in my communities, where the most regular experience we have of migrants is that they care for us and our loved ones?
Yvette Cooper
We need to support social care and recognise the importance of that job. That means tackling the long-term recruitment issues here in the UK, not simply always thinking that we can ignore those problems and turn to migration instead. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been huge problems, including abuse and exploitation, as a result of that route. Some 39,000 people who came here on a care worker visa, often in good faith, ended up being displaced when checks were finally introduced. That is why regional hubs have been introduced to ensure that employers can still recruit from those displaced workers, rather than continuing to recruit from abroad.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Migrants are being scapegoated for problems they did not cause. To be truthful, these arbitrary measures will not fix those problems, but they will harm migrants, people who need social care, our economy and anyone who fears racial abuse, which the rhetoric surrounding this issue emboldens. Why are we trying to ape Reform, when that will do nothing to improve our constituents’ lives and will just stoke more division?
Yvette Cooper
In the space of just four years, we saw a huge increase in overseas recruitment at exactly the same time that training in the UK fell. It is a real problem in the UK labour market to have such steep increases in overseas recruitment at the same time as we have such deep problems with training. That is why it is so important to ensure that for the first time, we link the immigration system with training and skills. That has not happened before; we have had the wrong approach to the labour market, and it is right that we bring in these reforms. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that we should also recognise the huge contribution that people make as part of our country. Respecting people for the contribution they make should be embedded in our system, but we have to change this broken approach to the labour market.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Prime Minister’s “island of strangers” speech sounded like something straight out of the Reform-Trump playbook. Rather than alienating and devaluing migrants, and recognising the need to increase the number of Brits who want to work in our health and care sectors, would the Home Secretary not prefer to support Unison’s campaign for a certificate of common sponsorship? Such a certificate would protect the working rights of migrant workers who are working in unacceptable situations of exploitation that border on slavery and who are at threat of deportation. As a Labour Member, would she not prefer to support that campaign?
Yvette Cooper
In the White Paper, we highlight the importance of tackling exploitation, which is deeply damaging for those who have come to the UK in good faith, as well as for other employers. We want to explore how we can make it easier for people to not be held to a single employer when there are problems with the sponsorship arrangements. We want to make that system more effective so that it can tackle exploitation.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome today’s White Paper, which brings substantive reforms to our immigration system after over a decade of expensive rhetoric. Can the Home Secretary set out what further reforms to our asylum and appeals system the Government are considering to deal with the ludicrous hotels situation that the last Government left us with?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right; we need to end asylum hotels, which means that we have to clear the shocking backlog that the previous Government left us with—they just stopped taking asylum decisions in the last few months in the run-up to the election. Another measure we are introducing is new statutory timetables for appeals, because the appeals system is causing a lot of the hold-ups in the backlog. We need that measure; it is part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that Members will be able to vote on tonight. That is why I hope all parties in the House will support that Bill.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. It is in the national interest that the Government get this right; I hope that that will happen, but to be honest I am not convinced yet, and we have not seen much of the detail. I also support the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his concerns about national security, which is something that should be taken more seriously.
This year, 10,500 people—illegal migrants—have crossed the English channel. That is a record number for this period of time compared with any previous year, and I saw nothing in the Prime Minister’s earlier leaked statement or, indeed, in the Home Secretary’s statement about a deterrent. Without a deterrent, we can have all the counter-terrorism commands, all the new laws and all the great statements in the world, but nothing is going to change.
Yvette Cooper
This evening, Members will be able to vote for a border security Bill that includes counter-terrorism powers to tackle criminal smuggler gangs. When we hosted the Interpol conference before Christmas, the Prime Minister said that border security is a national security issue, and needs to be taken seriously as such. That is why we need those counter-terrorism powers—it is why we need our police, the National Crime Agency, Border Force and border authorities to be able to intervene much earlier to take action against this dangerous trade in people that undermines our national security as well as our border security. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will vote for the Bill tonight.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The public have been waiting for 15 years to hear a Government set out a serious strategy to get a grip on the legal migration system so that it works for public confidence, for the economy and for migrants themselves. I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has announced in relation to the health and social care visa, because this has not only been very disruptive for the labour market but has led to instances of extreme exploitation and modern slavery. Will she commit herself to ensuring that these new measures are fully modern-slavery-proofed in the White Paper?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. There have been shameful examples of exploitation, which all of us have probably come across in our constituencies, involving the social care visa and the way in which it was introduced. People have come here to work incredibly hard in our care homes, which is why it is so important for us to tackle that exploitation and ensure that standards are met. We must ensure that we have a fair pay agreement, and, certainly, that we maintain the standards relating to tackling trafficking and modern slavery.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the funding crisis that affects many of the UK’s universities. Last year, when the Migration Advisory Committee reviewed the graduate visa route, it concluded that it should be retained, stating:
“Under the current higher education funding model, closure or additional restrictions could put many universities at financial risk.”
What is the Home Secretary’s assessment of the impact that these changes will have on the financial sustainability of our universities?
Yvette Cooper
Where universities are already meeting high standards of compliance, as most of them are, that is very welcome, but those that do not currently meet them will need to raise their compliance standards to ensure that we have a proper, robust system. The graduate visa will enable people to stay on for the unrestricted 18 months, but if they want to stay longer they will need to be contributing in graduate jobs. Too often people have stayed without doing that, although they have degrees and should therefore be obtaining graduate jobs, which they can also do through the skilled worker visa.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way in which to address the soaring level of migration for work purposes is to properly train and up-skill our domestic workers in constituencies such as mine? How will these measures contribute to the achievement of that aim?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. In Mansfield and throughout the country, we need training and skills. The immigration skills charge proposals mean that employers who recruit from abroad will have to contribute more towards training and skills in the UK. As well as being part of the temporary shortage list, sectors in which there are persistent shortages—and there will be such sectors, which are still crucial to the economy—will, for the first time, need to have proper workforce strategies in place setting out what action they are taking to improve and increase domestic recruitment and training so that it benefits UK residents who need to be part of our labour force.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
A care provider in my constituency has already been in touch, saying that a third of his workers are from overseas and are delivering about 60% of the work. He will be unable to care for 80 of his 120 clients. He has been hit by horrendous national insurance contributions, and has invested thousands of pounds in the model. In the absence of any adult social care plan, the Government are now effectively capping the number of workers. How can we plug the gap very quickly, and will care providers be properly supported with funding to allow these changes to happen?
Yvette Cooper
The care provider in the hon. Member’s constituency will be able to extend the care visas and will also be able to recruit displaced care workers, of whom there were 39,000 when the proper new checks and standards were introduced. He will also be able to recruit from the local community, with a proper fair pay agreement in place. We must have a strategy that values social care and deals with some of the historical causes of recruitment, rather than the social care visa leading to recruitment from abroad at a scale that led to significant exploitation.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that far from being strangers, migrants are our neighbours, friends and family and an integral part of our community, and that moves to cast them as strangers are divisive and hostile and risk legitimising the same far-right violence that we saw in last year’s summer riots? Have we learnt nothing?
Yvette Cooper
As I said in my statement, people have come here from abroad through many generations, contributing to our economy, being part of our community and making our country what it is. That is who we are as a country because of that history, and it will continue to be important to our future. We want people to be able to integrate and share with neighbours, and that is why some of the provisions to ensure that we support integration and the use of the English language are also important.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
How does the immigration White Paper address the significant number of pull factors currently advertised online? The Government’s own website www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get is there for any aspirational English-speaking asylum seeker to see just why it is worth running the risk of crossing the channel. It states:
“You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries… Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card…each week.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Please can we get to the question?
Ben Obese-Jecty
What are the Government doing to address the online advertising of this incredibly generous package?
Yvette Cooper
We inherited an asylum system that was in complete chaos. That is why we are reducing the backlog, and why we have taken action to tackle instances of visa misuse. In a number of countries there has been an increase in asylum applications, although people have come here lawfully on visas as well. We will continue to tackle that, and we will introduce new reforms alongside the White Paper on legal migration.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Last year, the now Home Secretary visited the Betty Berkins café in my constituency to discuss the very matter of the massive increase in overseas recruitment while the investment in our domestic workforce was falling drastically, contributing to the quadrupling of the net migration figures between 2019 and 2023. Does she agree that the best way in which to address soaring migration specifically for work purposes is to train and upskill our domestic workforce properly through measures that already exist in our groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill? How will the measures proposed today contribute to that work, and to the achievement of the overall aim?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right: we need proper training and skills. A system in which the number of engineering visas could rise while the number of engineering apprenticeships fell does not make any sense to anyone, which is why we must ensure that we not only have the training and skills but link them with the shortages and with the immigration system as well.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The House is right to be sceptical about a policy on a toxic issue that has been announced after the Government have suffered a significant electoral defeat in which the main issue was immigration. Can the Home Secretary tell us how deliverable many elements of this policy are? What will happen to the hundreds of thousands who are currently in graduate-level employment? How will the gap between recruiting and training people and getting them into jobs be filled? Given that the courts will not even allow the deportation of people who have served long prison sentences, how does the Home Secretary expect them to comply with her wish to deport people who have served no prison sentence?
Yvette Cooper
We are implementing the policies and commitments made in our manifesto to restore control and order to the immigration system so that we can bring net migration down and ensure that the system is fair. As part of the changes that we are introducing as a result of the White Paper, we have identified up to 180 lower-skilled occupations that should not be recruiting from abroad and should not be part of the temporary shortage list either, so that we can reduce the lower-skilled migration that has increased so substantially over the last four years, support skills and training, and tackle those labour market challenges.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
With net migration at 1.7 million over the last two years of the previous Government, people in Bassetlaw tell me that they are fed up with the pressures that uncontrolled immigration has put on our local infrastructure. The Prime Minister has recognised this today, with a clear commitment to reduce net migration and take back control of our borders. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this landmark cross-Government White Paper, which will fix the mess left by the Conservative party. Does she agree that we need to stop the reliance on imported workers from abroad and focus on properly training British people instead?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a cross-Government approach. It links to the work that the Work and Pensions Secretary is doing on helping people back into work, the work that the Education Secretary is doing on boosting training, and the work that the Business Secretary is doing on building up our industrial strategy so that we can plan for the workforce of the future. This is a cross-Government approach, which is how we will make sure that we have control of our migration system and boost the productivity of the economy.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
What was it about the local election results that first attracted the Home Secretary to the idea of rushing out an immigration White Paper?
Yvette Cooper
Even I could not draw up a White Paper in the space of two weeks. This White Paper was announced by the Prime Minister before Christmas when we saw the scale of the huge increase in net migration that the hon. Gentleman’s party had presided over. It is implementing the policies that we set out in our manifesto to properly link the immigration system with training and skills in the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am proud to represent this country’s only human rights city, where everybody is welcome and every life is of equal worth. Our economy depends very much on our universities, and our universities depend on international students—in fact, employers come to our country because of the diversity of our students. Will the Home Secretary properly consult the higher education sector—the second biggest export from my constituency is higher education—to ensure that we do not harm our local economy and the opportunities for both international and home students?
Yvette Cooper
I strongly value international students’ contribution to our economy. My hon. Friend is completely right to say how important international students are, but we also need to make sure that universities uphold standards by ensuring that systems are not misused, so that we can continue to support international students. It will benefit our economy if students who stay on afterwards are also doing graduate jobs.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
One of the things I have appreciated about this Government’s approach is the moderate tone of language that they have taken on really divisive cultural issues, but I am afraid I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister use the phrase “island of strangers” today. We all remember the deleterious effect on public debate after the “citizen of nowhere” speech, and I am concerned that we are going in the same direction. Can the Home Secretary offer me any reassurance?
Yvette Cooper
The approach that we set out in our manifesto, and that we have set out in this White Paper, is about how we properly control and manage the migration system so that it benefits the UK and supports community cohesion by supporting integration, ensuring that people can speak English and, as a result, challenging exploitation. The approach that we are taking is about embedding fairness and community cohesion at the heart of our immigration system. Too often, integration and community cohesion have not been part of the immigration system, and this White Paper makes sure that they are.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I recently visited a care company that expressed serious concerns about bogus organisations registering as care providers in order to sponsor individuals through the health and care visa. This not only undercuts legitimate care providers that pay and treat their staff properly, but raises significant concerns about the potential exploitation of workers entering the UK. What steps is the Home Secretary planning to take to clamp down on fraudulent practices and support reputable British care companies?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that the kind of exploitation that we have seen has been deeply damaging for people who have come to this country in good faith. Like him, I have spoken to people who travelled from far overseas, only to discover that there was no job for them when they arrived. They had sometimes been charged money and were at a huge risk of exploitation. As well as taking action with the Fair Work Agency and others to tackle exploitation more widely, we think it is right to end the overseas recruitment of care workers, and to support the care sector through the fair pay agreement and through improving support here in the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I intend to allow this statement to continue until 6.15 pm. I appreciate that many Members might be disappointed.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My constituency of Broxbourne has a hotel that is used to house illegal asylum seekers. This has placed huge pressure on local GP surgeries and schools, which are already overstretched, and my constituents and I have had enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this issue, and can she tell me when the hotel housing illegal asylum seekers in my constituency of Broxbourne will close?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that the previous Government introduced asylum hotels because they had lost control of the asylum system. This Government are clear that we need to end asylum hotels. To do that, we need to clear the backlog and make reforms to the appeals system. Again, we inherited a broken system for dealing with asylum appeals, and we are taking through reforms tonight as part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I hope he will vote for those reforms so that we can end asylum hotels.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has a proud history of welcoming refugees, whether it is migrants from Ireland back in the day or people fleeing political persecution in Nazi Germany. More recently, they opened their doors to refugees from Afghanistan and Ukraine. I welcome the Government’s measures to enable refugees to access skilled worker visas. However, what are the Home Secretary’s plans for refugees whose work visas will expire, but who cannot return to their countries of origin? Will they be eligible for settled status, and how will the Government guarantee their safety in the UK?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have supported people from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan who have fled persecution or conflict—or, in the case of Afghans, those who supported and worked with our armed forces. That will continue to be important. We want refugees to be able to apply for the skilled worker visa in the way that other people are able to do. As she rightly says, there are people who will be in this country when the circumstances in their home country change. In those circumstances, there needs to be provision either through the asylum system or through their being able to reapply for their visas.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Home Secretary will be aware that our higher education sector is world leading because it brings in the brightest and the best from around the world, including researchers, scientists and medical staff. She will also be aware that universities are struggling because of Home Office rules—not least Dundee University, which has suffered millions of pounds-worth of losses. Will she please take my invitation to come to Dundee so that she can see the direct consequences that her Department’s policies are having on that university?
Yvette Cooper
International students have brought huge benefits. They contribute by bringing investment, as well as skills and talent, and universities are important parts of local economies right across the country. However, it is important that all universities meet the proper standards of visa compliance. The vast majority do, but some have not met the compliance standards, and we urge them to do so. We will work with them, including by setting out action plans. We also want students who stay in this country after they finish their course to get graduate jobs, so that they can properly contribute to our economy.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Peterborough is a generous and warm place, and our city and public services have been made richer by the peoples who have come and made their homes in communities alongside me and others. However, too many people and too many working-class families often feel that the system is rigged against them when it comes to skills and wages. Will my right hon. Friend tell us a bit more about the work she will do on the White Paper with Skills England, the Department for Education and others to ensure we boost apprenticeships? Will she also keep high on her mind and reiterate to this House the desire to tackle illegal immigration, and to ensure that hotels such as the Dragonfly in my constituency are stood down as soon as possible?
Yvette Cooper
We do need to increase apprenticeships and training, which is why we are supporting 60,000 more construction workers to go through training to support our economy, alongside, as my hon. Friend rightly says, plans to make sure we end asylum hotels.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Home Secretary refused to say whether her proposals to reform indefinite leave to remain, briefed to the media as a tough new crackdown, will apply to immigrants who are already here. If it does not apply to people already here, it makes a mockery of the very idea of reform, so will the Home Secretary answer very clearly: will the new rules apply to existing immigrants or just those coming in in future?
Yvette Cooper
We want the settlement rules to be amended as swiftly as possible and to apply widely, but we will consult on the detail, and it is right that we do so. I say to the hon. Member that this is just one of the many things we need to do to clear up the chaos that his party left.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
After 14 years of broken promises, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on bringing down net migration. With one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, will she set out to the families and young people in my constituency what this White Paper will do for them?
Yvette Cooper
One of the most important aspects of the White Paper will be the increase in the immigration skills charge, meaning that where employers are recruiting from abroad and there are shortage occupations, they will be contributing more to support skills and training here in the UK, including support for our young people to get the apprenticeships and jobs they need.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The announcements today will deepen social care workforce shortages and risk harm to those who receive care. Have the Government considered the impacts on the sick, the frail and the elderly who rely on care workers to provide vital support? Will the Government publish an impact assessment setting out the effect of their reforms, and what will they do for the quality and availability of care and about the work of the Casey commission?
Yvette Cooper
As I pointed out in my statement, the number of care workers recruited from abroad has fallen since the initial big increase, and it is important to prevent such an increase taking place again, because we have seen significant exploitation. As a result of introducing higher standards, 39,000 care workers were displaced: they came here to do jobs that either did not exist or did not meet the right standards. We urge care providers to recruit from the pool of people who are already here.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the steps she is taking to bring order to the chaotic immigration system we inherited. I want to ask a question in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Universities in Edinburgh are on their knees because of changes the Tory Government made to immigration and because of SNP cuts to the sector. The staff are keen to contribute to economic growth in the UK, but they are concerned that what is in the White Paper may make that harder. Can she commit to working across Government to ensure that our universities come out of this stronger so that they can contribute to economic growth?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend may be aware that the biggest increases in the number of student visas were often for lower-ranking universities in the league tables, and people often did not do graduate jobs afterwards. We hugely support international students, and he is right to refer to Edinburgh University and other universities across the country. We want to work with universities to ensure that high standards of compliance are met, and that when international students stay in the UK they are doing graduate jobs.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Could the Home Secretary explain why, in the introduction of this White Paper, the language of Enoch Powell was used by the Prime Minister? There has been no speaking up about the enormous value of migration to this country, which has kept our NHS running, our education service running and so much more, and that there are already 130,000 vacancies in the care sector. Does anything in her White Paper do anything to improve community relations or deal with the labour shortage now in the NHS and the care service, or is it all about trying to please these people—Reform Members—who unfortunately sit in front of me?
Yvette Cooper
At the very beginning of my statement to this House, I talked about the importance of those who have come to work in our NHS, to serve in our armed forces, to work in constituencies like mine in coalmining jobs, and to do some of the most difficult jobs of all. However, it is because migration is important that it needs to be controlled and managed, and we need to tackle the underlying problems in the labour market. Net migration quadrupled in four years at a time when domestic training was cut, and when we did not have support for skills and training in the UK. I think that shows a system that just is not working. We have to tackle training and skills shortages, alongside bringing down net migration.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My constituents are sick and tired of broken promises on immigration. Five Conservative Prime Ministers promised to cut arrivals while deliberately letting numbers reach record highs. Can the Secretary of State confirm to the people of North Warwickshire and Bedworth that the broken promises are over, and that when this Government say that we will cut immigration levels and invest in skills and training, and in good jobs for my constituents, that is exactly what we will do?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We are setting out practical plans on the skilled worker visa, construction training jobs, and an immigration skills charge, so that we can invest in training. It is through those practical, common-sense plans that, step by step, we will restore order to the immigration system and bring down net migration.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The White Paper talks in vague terms about potential changes that build on and learn from the displaced talent programme. Will the Home Secretary be really clear with the House about where she sees those changes going? More importantly, what safeguards will she put in place to ensure that any such changes do not act as a massive magnet for those who wish to illegally enter our country?
Yvette Cooper
I think the opposite of what the hon. Member said is true. We have talked about capped and limited schemes. At the moment, it is possible for people from other parts of the world to apply for a skilled worker visa if they have the talent—for example, if they are an engineer or a scientist—but recognised refugees are often not able to apply for skilled worker visas as scientists, doctors and so on, even though they have that skill and talent. We should ensure that we do our bit to help refugees, who should be able to come in on a skilled worker visa when they have the skills to do so.
Points of Order
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I seek advice on how I can withdraw my ten-minute rule Bill on protecting the job title of “nurse”, which is due for its Second Reading? Today, on International Nurses Day, the Government have announced that they will adopt my Bill, and will indeed protect the title of nurse, which has made me extremely happy. As I will not have another opportunity to do so, I thank Francis Fernando, Professor Alison Leary from the #ProtectNurse campaign, Paul Trevatt, former Minister Ann Keen, Anna Lynch, the Royal College of Nursing and Unison.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Public Bill Office will be able to advise her on how to withdraw her Bill. It is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put on record her reason for withdrawing the Bill.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 10 February 2025, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum inadvertently misled the House. She stated:
“The latest figures show that 18,987 people with no right to be here have been deported since we came into government.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 131.]
The Home Office clearly defines deportations as
“a specific subset of returns which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person’s removal from the UK is conducive to the public good.”
The latest figures available state that in the year ending 2024, there were just 4,428 enforced returns since Labour came into government. The rest were, in fact, voluntary returns, nearly 50% of which are classified as other verified returns in which the Government played no active role. Will you please ask the Minister to correct the record in accordance with 1.6.c. of the “Ministerial Code” during her next appearance at the Dispatch Box?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of that point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Government Front Bench will have heard his point.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. By the way, it would be useful to know from the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) how she pulled that one off.
Last week, a number of hon. Members wrote to the Foreign Secretary after published research demonstrated, despite the Government’s assurances that arms sales to Israel had ended, that there has been a large-scale export of arms to Israel since those assurances were given. We asked the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to come to the House and make a statement. A statement has not been made, and I do not believe that an indication has been given to Mr Speaker that a statement will be made. We have not even received a response to the letter. I wonder whether we could, through your good offices, impress upon the Government the fact that a response is required, and that it would best be given to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on the matter, but the Foreign Secretary will be in the House tomorrow for questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so hon. Members will have a chance to raise the issue then.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In last Wednesday’s Adjournment debate on Essex devolution, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) stated that it was his understanding that
“there have been conversations between local councils about Thurrock joining London.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 813.]
I believe he is aware that Thurrock council has made it abundantly clear, in response to a freedom of information request, that no such discussions have taken place. These rumours have caused considerable concern locally. As a lifelong Thurrock resident who agrees that our borough is Essex through and through, I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock can correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Did she notify the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) that she intended to raise the matter in the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chair is not responsible for the substance of hon. Members’ speeches, but the hon. Lady has put her point on the record.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will correct the record very briefly now. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) is aware, I had received multiple verbal notices that discussions were being had between Thurrock and other councils in the area, so I put in a freedom of information request, which concluded that there had been discussions. It turned out that it was only due to an administrative error that they said there had not been. I had received verbal information and written confirmation that there had been, which is why I gave the speech I did. I would point out that in the speech I gave, I even referred to the fact that the conversations had been denied; again, I also explained that to the hon. Member for Thurrock. I believe I have done all I can on that, but given the number of strained relationships in this place, I certainly hope that this does not strain ours, and that we can continue to work constructively together.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He has put his point on the record. I remind hon. Members that points of order should be brief.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ways and Means)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees by the Immigration Services Commissioner.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 90 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 402 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 87 / Noes: 404 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 95 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Timeframe for determination of appeal brought by appellant receiving accommodation support.
Government new clause 7—Timeframe for determination of certain appeals brought by non-detained appellants liable to deportation.
Government new clause 8—Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime.
New clause 1—Duty to report and publish data on deaths in the asylum system and small boat crossings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, on a quarterly basis, publish and lay before Parliament a report that includes the number of deaths that have occurred in relation to the UK asylum system in the three months preceding the date specified in that report.
(2) The specified date under subsection (1) must be no more than six months prior to the date of publication.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include―
(a) The total number of deaths occurring, during the specified period, of persons who were, at the time of death―
(i) in receipt of accommodation under sections 4, 95 or 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or
(ii) awaiting the outcome of a claim for asylum while residing in other forms of accommodation or at no fixed abode; or
(iii) undertaking an unauthorised crossing of the English Channel;
(b) the cause of death for each person reported, if known; and
(c) the locations in which each death occurred, if known.
(4) The first report under this section must be made published no later than one year after the passing of this Act.
(5) For the purposes of this section―
(a) A “claim for asylum” is defined in accordance with section 167 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and
(b) an “unauthorised crossing” is a sea crossing made by an individual without leave to enter the United Kingdom, made from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and in small boat channel crossings.
New clause 2—Reports on restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report explaining what progress has been made towards providing asylum applicants with the right to take up employment whilst their application is being determined.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published—
(a) by 31 December 2025, or
(b) within three months of the passing of this Act, whichever is earliest
(3) The Secretary of State must make a further report under subsection (1) at least every twelve calendar month after the publication of the first report, until the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment are removed.
(4) Any report under subsection (1) must include a review of—
(a) the current 12 month waiting period attached to the permission to work, and
(b) the restriction of roles to the Immigration Salary List.
(5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) a copy of any report published under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament before the end of the day on which it is published, or the next sitting day if it is published on a non-sitting day;
(b) the House of Commons to debate a motion, made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report; and
(c) the House of Lords to debate a motion, made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the House of Lords has considered the report.
(6) The debates required under subsections (5)(b) and (c) must take place within 25 sitting days of the day on which the report is laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament annually on the Government's working rights policies for people in the asylum system, and for both Houses of Parliament to debate a motion on the report.
New clause 3—Duty to publish a strategy on safe and managed routes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy on the Government’s efforts to establish additional safe and legal routes for persons to seek asylum in the United Kingdom.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a strategy on the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK.
New clause 4—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—
“The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—
(a) sections 58 to 65, and
(b) sections 68 and 69.”
This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, relating to modern slavery victims.
New clause 9—Humanitarian Assistance—
“A person (“P”) does not commit an offence under section 13 (supplying articles for use in immigration crime), section 14 (handling articles for use in immigration crime), or section 16 (collecting information for use in immigration crime) if P’s action was for the purposes of providing humanitarian assistance.”
This new clause would ensure that individuals who provide humanitarian assistance would not be considered as having committed the new criminal offences created by clauses 13, 14 and 16 of this Bill.
New clause 10—Functions of the Commander in relation to sea crossings to United Kingdom—
“(1) In exercising the Commander’s functions in relation to sea crossings to the United Kingdom, the Commander must have regard to the objectives of—
(a) preventing the boarding of vessels, with the aim of entering the United Kingdom, by persons who require leave to enter the United Kingdom but are seeking to enter the United Kingdom—
(i) without leave to enter, or
(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person;
(b) ensuring that a decision is taken on a claim by a person under subsection (1)(a) within six months of the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom; and
(c) making arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of a person who enters the United Kingdom without leave, or with leave that was obtained by deception.
(2) The Commander must include, in the strategic priority document issued under section 3(2), an assessment of—
(a) the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry into the United Kingdom;
(b) the most effective methods for reducing the number of sea crossings made by individuals without leave to enter the United Kingdom; and
(c) the most effective methods for arranging the removal, to the person’s own country or a safe third country, of a person who enters the United Kingdom illegally.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “sea crossings” are journeys from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom; and
(b) illegal entry to the United Kingdom is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”
This new clause sets out objectives and strategic priorities for the Border Security Commander in relation to sea crossings and arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally.
New clause 11—Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom—
“(1) The minimum qualification period for applications for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is a period of ten years.
(2) The qualification period in subsection (1) applies to a person who has—
(a) a tier 2, T2, International Sportsperson or Skilled Worker visa,
(b) a Scale-up Worker visa,
(c) a Global Talent, Tier 1 Entrepreneur or Investor visa,
(d) an Innovator Founder visa,
(e) a UK Ancestry visa, or
(f) a partner holding UK citizenship.
(3) A person who has lived in the United Kingdom for ten years or more but does not meet the criteria in subsection (2) cannot apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would extend the qualification period for applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK to ten years and abolish the long-stay route, through which a person can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain based on having lived in the UK for ten years or more.
New clause 12—Age assessments: use of scientific methods—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament—
(a) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 specifying scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments, and
(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 making provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods for age assessments.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify scientific methods for assessing a person’s age and to disapply the requirement for consent for scientific methods to be used.
New clause 13—Revocation of indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances—
“(1) Indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is revoked with respect to a person (“P”) if any of the following conditions apply.
(2) Condition 1 is that P is defined as a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
(3) Condition 2 is that P was granted indefinite leave to remain after the coming into force of this Act, but would not be eligible for indefinite leave under the requirements of section [Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom].
(4) Condition 3 is that P, or any dependents of P, have been in receipt of any form of “social protection” (including housing) from HM Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules.
(5) Condition 4 is that P’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period, or subsequent to receiving indefinite leave to remain.
(6) A person who has entered the United Kingdom—
(a) under the Ukraine visa schemes;
(b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme;
(c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or
(d) on a British National Overseas visa,
is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2, Condition 3, and Condition 4.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (5)—
(a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and
(b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation.
(8) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules vary the conditions set out in this section.”
This new clause would revoke indefinite leave where a person is a foreign criminal, has been in receipt of benefits, earns below the national median income, or (for those granted indefinite leave after the coming into force of this Act) would not meet the requirements sought to be imposed by NC11.
New clause 14—Borders legislation: Human Rights Act—
“(1) This section applies to any provision made by or by virtue of this Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Immigration Acts, and any legislation relating to immigration, deportation, or asylum, including the Immigration Rules within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971.
(2) The legislation identified in subsection (1), including in relation to the enforcement of immigration policy, deportation, the granting, removal, revocation or alteration of immigration status, or asylum, or other entitlements, must be read and given effect to disregarding the Human Rights Act 1998.
(3) In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, omit section 2.
(4) In the Immigration Act 1971—
(a) in section 8AA—
(i) in subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsections (3) to (5)”; and
(ii) omit subsections (2)(a)(ii) and subsections (3) to (6);
(b) in section 8B, omit subsection (5A).
(5) In section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—
(a) in subsection (1), after “must” insert “not”;
(b) in subsection (2), after “must” insert “not”;
(c) in subsection (2), for “section 6” substitute “any section”; and
(d) in subsection (3) after “must” insert “not”.
(6) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under the legislation identified in subsection (1)—
(a) it is only for a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure under this section; and
(b) an immigration officer or court or tribunal must not have regard to the interim measure.”
This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to this Bill and to other legislation about borders, asylum and immigration.
New clause 15—Offences and deportation—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 32—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”;
(b) in subsection (1)(b) leave out "and” and insert “or”; and
(c) leave out subsection (1)(c) and substitute—
“(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971”
(d) leave out subsections (2) and (3).
(3) In section 33, leave out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6A).
(4) The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(5) Leave out subsection (5) of section 1 and insert—
“(5) The Human Rights Act does not apply to provision made by or by virtue of this Act or to—
(a) the Immigration Act 1971,
(b) the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
(c) the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
(d) the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or
(e) the Immigration Act 2016.”
(6) In section 6 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
(7) In section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, leave out all instances of “knowingly”.”
This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with or convicted with an immigration offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
New clause 16—Restrictions on visas for spouses and civil partners—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another (the sponsor).
(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) in England and Wales and Scotland, such representatives of local authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland; and
(c) any such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) But the duty to consult under subsection (2) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that the maximum number under subsection (1) needs to be changed as a matter of urgency.
(4) The Secretary of State must commence the consultation under subsection (2) in relation to the first regulations to be made under this section before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) The regulations must specify that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations under subsection (1).
(6) If, in any year, the number of persons who enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor exceeds the number specified in regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament—
(a) setting out the number of persons who have, in that year, entered the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor; and
(b) explaining why the number exceeds that specified in the regulations.
(7) The statement under subsection (6) must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the year to which the statement relates.
(8) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (9) to (11).
(9) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement as the spouse or civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement includes that—
(a) the applicant is married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and is, on the same occasion, seeking admission to the United Kingdom for the purposes of settlement;
(b) the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application;
(c) each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouses or civil partners and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting;
(d) the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and
(e) the applicant and the person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom are both at least 23 years old.
(10) Leave to enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner under subsection (9) is to be refused if the parties concerned are first cousins.
(11) For the purposes of this section, “local authority” means—
(a) in England and Wales, a county council, a county borough council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and
(b) in Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK, and on the number that may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold.
New clause 17—Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules provide for all visa grants, including spousal visas, to be conditional on the following—
(a) the requirement that the applicant or their dependents will not apply for any form of “social protection” (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules; and
(b) the requirement that the applicant’s annual income must not fall below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period.
(2) Immigration Rules made under subsection (1) must ensure that any breach of the conditions set out in that subsection will render void any visa previously granted.
(3) The Secretary of State is not permitted to grant leave outside the immigration rules or immigration acts.
(4) A person is not eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom if any of the following conditions apply.
(5) Condition 1 is that a person is a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
(6) Condition 2 is that a person, or any of their dependents, has been in receipt of any form of “social protection” (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules.
(7) Condition 3 is that a person’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period.
(8) A person who has entered the United Kingdom—
(a) under the Ukraine visa schemes;
(b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme;
(c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or
(d) on a British National Overseas visa,
is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2 and Condition 3.
(9) For the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (7)—
(a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and
(b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation.
(10) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules make further provision varying these conditions, including by way of transitional provisions.”
This new clause would place certain restrictions on the granting of visas or indefinite leave to remain. It would require migrants to be self-sufficient and not to require state benefits, and would deny indefinite leave to remain to foreign criminals.
New clause 18—Cap on the number of entrants—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually across all non-visitor visa routes, with such regulations subject to approval by both Houses.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations also specify a maximum number of entrants for individual visa routes, subject to the overall total.
(3) No visas may be issued in excess of the total maximum number specified in subsection (1).
(4) Any visas issued in excess of the number specified in subsection (1) must be revoked.”
This new clause would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK.
New clause 19—Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries—
“(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 70, omit subsections (4) and (5).
(3) In section 72—
(a) subsection (1), after “A country”, for “may” substitute “must”.
(b) In subsection (1)(a) omit “and” and insert “or, (ab) is not cooperating in relation to the verification of identity or status of individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country, and”
(c) in subsection (1)(b), after “citizens of the country” insert “or individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country”,
(d) omit subsections (2) and (3), and
(e) in subsection (4), omit from “70” to after “subsection (1)(a)”.
(4) Omit section 74.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not cooperating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status.
New clause 20—Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals—
“(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) of section 15 (Exemptions etc), at end insert “, and makes provision about the exemption from all GDPR provisions of persons who entered the United Kingdom illegally and foreign criminals;
(3) In paragraph (2) of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) GDPR provisions do not apply if the data subject entered the United Kingdom illegally or is a foreign criminal.
(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)—
(a) a person “entered the United Kingdom illegally” if they entered the United Kingdom—
(i) without leave to enter, or
(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person; and
(b) “foreign criminal” is defined in accordance with section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.””
This new clause would disapply data protection laws from data on people who have entered the UK illegally or are Foreign National Offenders.
New clause 21—Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”
This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.
New clause 22—Additional safe and legal routes—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations specifying safe and legal routes through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.
New clause 23—Duty to meet the director of Europol—
“The Border Commander must meet the director of Europol, or their delegate, no less than once every three months.”
This new clause would require the Border Commander to meet with the Executive Director of Europol every three months.
New clause 24—Duty to establish a joint taskforce with Europol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must seek to establish a joint taskforce with Europol for the purposes of cooperation on the matters set out under subsection (3).
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a joint taskforce under subsection (1).
(3) Any joint taskforce established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) has a duty to promote cooperation on—
(a) the disruption of trafficking operations;
(b) the enhancement of law enforcement capabilities;
(c) the provision of specialised training for officials involved in border security and immigration enforcement; and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State or Director of Europol deem appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to seek a joint taskforce with Europol for the purposes of disrupting trafficking operations, enhancing law enforcement capabilities, and providing specialised training to officials involved in border security and immigration enforcement.
New clause 25—Participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must provide adequate resources to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enhancing their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations.
(2) The resources provided under subsection (1) must include technology for conducting improved surveillance on, and detection of, smuggling networks.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “law enforcement agencies” include—
(a) the National Crime Agency
(b) police forces in England and Wales; and
(c) the British Transport Police.”
This new clause would require the Government to allocate adequate resources to law enforcement agencies to enhance their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, including through technological tools for better surveillance and detection of smuggling networks.
New clause 26—Requirement to produce an annual report on cooperation with Europol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament an annual report on cooperation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol.
(2) A further report must be published and laid before Parliament at least once per year.
(3) An annual report under this section must include—
(a) actions taken during the previous year to cooperate with Europol;
(b) progress in reducing people smuggling and human trafficking; and
(c) planned activities for improving future cooperation with Europol.”
This new clause would require the Government to provide an annual report to Parliament detailing the UK’s efforts to cooperate with Europol, its progress in reducing levels of people smuggling and human trafficking, and its plans to improve future cooperation.
New clause 27—Reuniting unaccompanied child refugees with family members—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a child relative of a person or persons given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection, are that the applicant—
(a) is the child, grandchild, sister, brother, nephew or niece of a person or persons granted limited leave to enter or remain as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection granted as such under the immigration rules; and
(b) is under the age of 18; and
(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the person or persons the child is seeking to join, own or occupy exclusively; and
(d) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join, without recourse to public funds; and
(e) if seeking leave to enter, holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity.
(3) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the close relative of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection are that the applicant is—
(a) a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection; and
(b) joining a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who is under the age of 18 and not living with a parent or grandparent; and
(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately, together with any dependants, without recourse to public funds.
(4) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) may be granted for five years provided that, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant has entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) may be granted provided the Secretary of State is satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.
(5) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is not produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant does not have entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.
(6) Civil legal services are to be provided to an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) in relation to rights to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom pursuant to schedule 1, subsection 30(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.”
This new clause would require changes to the immigration rules to extend the family members that could apply to join an unaccompanied child refugee in the UK, to include parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts, and to allow unaccompanied child refugees to sponsor close adult family members to join them in the UK. It also provides for legal aid to be available in such cases.
New clause 28—Good character requirement: illegal entry—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, ensure that illegal entry to the UK is disregarded as a factor for the purposes of assessing whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the good character requirement.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to change current Home Office guidance stating that individuals who enters the UK illegally, regardless of how long ago, will "normally be refused" citizenship (if they applied after 10 February 2025).
New clause 29—Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on how implementing a carers’ minimum wage would impact on levels of net migration.
New clause 30—A three-month service standard for asylum casework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, implement a three month service standard for asylum casework.
(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”
This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.
New clause 31—Exemption of NHS workers from immigration skills charge—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, implement an exemption for National Health Service workers from the immigration skills charge for sponsoring a Skilled Worker or a Senior or Specialist worker.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to apply an exception to the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees.
New clause 32—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (No. 2)—
“(1) The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—
(a) sections 12 to 65; and
(b) sections 68 and 69.”
This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
New clause 33—Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings—
“The Secretary of State must—
(a) within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce legislation to ensure the United Kingdom’s full compliance with the 2009 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; and
(b) within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on how the Government is ensuring full compliance with the Convention under this section.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation which incorporates the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings into UK law and report on compliance with the Convention.
New clause 34—Victims of slavery or human trafficking: protection from immigration offences—
“(1) The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52 (Duty to notify Secretary of State about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking), after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to ensure that notification under this section does not include the supply of information to relevant persons or authorities that might indicate that—
(a) the victim has committed an offence under sections 24 to 26 of the Immigration Act 1971, or
(b) the victim might otherwise meet the requirements for removal from the United Kingdom or for investigation pending removal.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “relevant persons or authorities” include—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department;
(b) an immigration officer;
(c) a customs official;
(d) a law enforcement officer;
(e) the Director of Border Revenue;
(f) the Border Security Commander;
(g) a UK authorised person; and
(h) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.””
This new clause would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.
New clause 35—Humanitarian travel permit—
“(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—
(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;
(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and
(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—
(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted;
(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;
(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and
(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.
(4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.
(5) The requirements are—
(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and
(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).
(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).
(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.
(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph(1);
(b) “entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(c) “protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—
(i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”);
(ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or
(iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”);
(d) “persecution” is defined in accordance with the Refugee Convention; and
(e) “serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”
This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.
New clause 36—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.
(5) In this section, “family members” include—
(a) a person's parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) a person's child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;
(d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules, and
(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
New clause 37—Children born in the UK: British citizenship—
“(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1(3A) insert—
“(3B) A person (“P”) born in the United Kingdom on or after the relevant day who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1), (1A) or (2) or section 10A shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if, when P was born, P’s father or mother—
(a) had previously entered the UK whilst holding leave to enter the UK; and
(b) was subsequently, and at the time of P’s birth, subject to UK immigration control.”
(3) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 are amended as follows.
(4) In Schedule 1, Table 20A, insert—
“No fee is payable in respect of an application for registration as a British citizen under the 1981 Act where the application is made under section 1(3B) of that Act.””
This new clause would ensure citizenship for children born in the UK whose parents had leave to enter the UK but were not British citizens or had settled status at the time of their child's birth, and for fees for that registration to be waived.
New clause 38—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (No. 3)—
“(1) The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—
(a) section 12,
(b) section 16,
(c) sections 30 to 38, and
(d) section 40.”
This new clause would repeal provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 concerning: the creation of two separate groups of refugees, subject to differential treatment; the inadmissibility of asylum claims by persons with a connection to a safe third State; the interpretation of the Refugee Convention; and the creation of offences relating and similar to illegal entry to the UK.
New clause 39—Duty to deport in accordance with the Refugee Convention—
“(1) The Secretary of State must seek to remove anyone who, based on Article 1F and Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention, does not have the benefit of the non-refoulement provisions of the Refugee Convention.
(2) This duty does not apply in relation to persons who would face a real risk of capital punishment or extra-judicial killing or whose removal would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention against Torture.
(3) If a domestic court or tribunal has ruled that a person’s removal would not contravene subsection (1) and (2), the court or tribunal may—
(a) Consider whether removal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998,
(b) But if it considers that removal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, the Secretary of State may seek the removal of that person, notwithstanding the Act.
(4) The Secretary of State may delay the removal of an individual where subsection (3)(b) applies, until the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the compatibility of that removal.
(5) The Secretary of State must argue before the European Court of Human Rights that the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be interpreted as preventing the removal of an individual if such removal is compatible with the Refugee Convention and the United Nations Convention against Torture.
(6) If the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rules that the European Convention on Human Rights takes precedence over the Refugee Convention and United Nations Convention against Torture, the Secretary of State may decide to comply with that Grand Chamber decision.
(7) If the Secretary of State decides to comply with a ruling of the Grand Chamber, they must publish a quarterly report setting out the anonymised details of those individuals who could be deported subject to subsections (1) and (2) but have not been deported because of a decision by the Secretary of State to comply with a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court on Human Rights.”
New clause 40—Detention of illegal migrants—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, set out plans to detain illegal migrants in secure accommodation.
(2) Detention under subsection (1)—
(a) must occur immediately upon a person’s arrival into the UK without leave to enter the UK;
(b) must be in accommodation with requisite security, not including hotels or residential accommodation; and
(c) must be for no more than 24 hours, during which any asylum claim must be assessed and decided.
(3) Any person whose asylum claim under this section is refused must be deported within 24 hours of refusal.
(4) A plan under subsection (1) must be—
(a) laid before Parliament, and
(b) implemented within twelve months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to set up secure accommodation to detain illegal migrants as soon as they arrive in the UK, assess any asylum claim with 24 hours of detention, and deport any failed applicants.
New clause 41—Impact of European Convention on Human Rights on border security—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an assessment of the impact of the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights on the UK’s border security.
(2) An assessment under this section must be laid before Parliament and must include—
(a) the number of additional persons likely to be deported from the United Kingdom annually if the UK were to depart from the European Convention on Human Rights, and
(b) of those, the number of foreign criminals likely to be deported annually.”
This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the ECHR on the UK’s border security.
New clause 42—Transparency in age dispute decision-making—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, and on a quarterly basis thereafter—
(a) prepare and publish a report on age assessments conducted for the purposes of immigration control, and
(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must include—
(a) the total number of age disputes raised during the reporting period,
(b) the number of individuals who were initially treated as adults but were subsequently assessed to be under the age of 18,
(c) the number of individuals who were initially treated as children but were subsequently assessed to be 18 or over,
(d) the number and percentage of individuals referred for a formal Merton-compliant age assessment,
(e) the number of safeguarding referrals made as a result of age misclassification, and
(f) the number of legal challenges brought in relation to age assessments, and the outcome of those challenges.
(3) The report must also include an assessment of the impact of age dispute procedures on unaccompanied children, with particular regard to—
(a) the duration of time spent in adult accommodation, detention, or prison,
(b) any effect on access to education, healthcare, and social care services,
(c) any risks to mental and physical health arising from misclassification, and
(d) any referrals to or findings made by safeguarding professionals or regulatory bodies in relation to such cases.
(4) In this section—
“child” means a person who is under the age of 18,
“Merton-compliant” means compliant with the principles established in R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin),
“age dispute” means any case in which the claimed age of an individual for immigration purposes is challenged or reassessed by the Home Office or a relevant authority.”
This new clause would require the Home Office to publish a detailed analysis which includes the outcomes on age assessments. It aims to increase transparency in the current process and to support policy reform that better safeguards children at risk of being misclassified as adults. Its aim is to ensure a more transparent, and accountable approach to age disputes.
New clause 43—Management of immigration removal centres and asylum accommodation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make by regulations a register of prohibited providers of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation.
(2) The register under subsection (1) must include all companies or persons—
(a) found guilty of or fined for—
(i) gross misconduct,
(ii) abuse,
(iii) overcharging, or
(iv) fraud
in relation to their operation of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation, or
(b) who have not, following inspection by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), met the recommendations of the subsequent report within 6 months.
(3) The Secretary of State or department must not enter into further contracts or renewal of contracts with any prohibited provider.”
This new clause would require the Home Office to make a register of prohibited providers of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation who have been convicted of gross misconduct, abuse, overcharging or fraud, or have not met the recommendations of an inspection report. The Home Office cannot renew or enter into further contracts with prohibited providers on the register.
New clause 44—National Referral Mechanism: duty to create a new visa scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by immigration rules, create a new visa scheme for persons who—
(a) are regarded by a first responder organisation as eligible for referral into the National Referral Mechanism for modern slavery; and
(b) are in receipt of an Overseas Domestic Worker visa under the terms of the Immigration Rules Appendix Overseas Domestic Worker; or
(c) have been in receipt of such a visa within the six months prior to a referral under paragraph (a).
(2) Immigration rules under subsection (1)—
(a) must be laid before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act; and
(b) must be commenced within six months of being laid before Parliament.
(3) Immigration rules under subsection (1) must—
(a) enable an eligible person to remain in the UK until the later of—
(i) the date on which a conclusive grounds decision is made; or
(ii) the date on which any reconsideration or judicial review of a conclusive grounds decision has concluded; or
(iii) for persons recognised as a victim of modern slavery through a positive conclusive grounds decision, the date on which the person is granted either Discretionary Leave under the Immigration Act 1971 or Temporary Permission to Stay under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders and 2022; and
(b) enable the eligible person to work as a domestic worker for any eligible employer during the period specified by this subsection.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“first responder organisation” is to be defined by immigration rules under this section;
“National Referral Mechanism” means the national framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive appropriate support;
“conclusive grounds decision” means a decision by a competent authority as to whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a new visa scheme for victims of modern slavery who have been granted an Overseas Domestic Worker visa, to avoid visa concerns acting as a deterrent against referral for support under the National Referral Mechanism.
New clause 45—Good character requirement—
“(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 41A, (Registration: requirement to be of good character), after subsection (4), insert—
“(4A) The good character requirement under this section must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.
(4B) The Secretary of State must ensure any guidance issued regarding the good character requirement reflects the following—
(a) any assessment of good character may only take into account the illegal entry, arrival or presence of a person (P) in the United Kingdom if at the time of P's entry to or arrival in the UK—
(i) P was aged 18 years or over,
(ii) P would have been given leave to enter under the immigration rules, if P had sought it, and
(iii) the assessment of P's good character is made on the basis of guidance, which was published.
(b) It is for the Secretary of State to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that—
(i) P would have been given leave to enter under the immigration rules, if P had sought it; and
(ii) it would have been reasonable to expect P to have sought and obtained such leave to enter.
(4C) In this section—
“the good character requirement” refers to the provision regarding a person being of good character in section 41A (Registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (Acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981.
“immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.’
This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. It also ensures that guidance would only take into account a person’s illegal entry, arrival or presence, if they arrived as an adult, when there was a safe route under the Immigration Rules available to them, and it would have been reasonable to expect them to have used that route.
Amendment 1, clause 3, page 2, line 28, after “such threats”, insert—
“including the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports,”.
This amendment requires the Border Security Commander (“the Commander”), to have regard to the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports.
Amendment 31, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) The strategic priority document issued under subsection (2) must support the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy.”
This amendment would require that the Border Security Commander’s strategic priority document supports the UK Border Strategy.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 2, after “borders”, insert “, including biosecurity”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1, and clarifies that UK biosecurity is an element of border security.
Amendment 4, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is—
(a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities,
(b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors,
(c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery,
(d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma,
(e) an unaccompanied child,
(f) a person at risk of persecution,
(g) a pregnant woman, or
(h) a person holding refugee status.”
This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 13 (supplying articles for use in immigration crime) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual.
Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“or,
(c) their action was—
(i) solely as part of their own journey, and
(ii) they did not gain financially from the action.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence.
Amendment 30, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is—
(a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities,
(b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors,
(c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery,
(d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma,
(e) an unaccompanied child,
(f) a person at risk of persecution,
(g) a pregnant woman, or
(h) a person holding refugee status.”
This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 14 (Handling articles for use in immigration crime) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
“(i) a telephonic device
(j) means for charging a telephonic device”
This amendment adds to the list of articles that aren’t included as relevant articles for the purposes of the new criminal offences of supplying or handling items to be used by people making a dangerous journey.
Amendment 38, in clause 16, page 9, line 38, leave out from “journey” to end of line 39 and insert—
“that they would not benefit from financially.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence.
Amendment 5, in clause 18, page 11, line 36, at end insert—
“(E1C) For the purposes of subsections (E1A) and (E1B) a person cannot commit an offence if the person is—
(a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities,
(b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors,
(c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery,
(d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma,
(e) an unaccompanied child,
(f) a person at risk of persecution,
(g) a pregnant woman, or
(h) a person holding refugee status.”
This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 18 (Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual.
Government amendments 6 to 12.
Amendment 32, page 30, line 29, leave out clause 37.
This amendment would remove the clause relating to the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Amendment 33, page 30, line 31, leave out clause 38.
This amendment would remove the clause relating to the repeal of immigration legislation.
Amendment 35, in clause 38, page 30, line 34, leave out “11” and insert “12”.
This amendment would add section 12, concerning the Secretary of State’s powers to detain people under the Immigration Act 1972, to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.
Amendment 34, page 31, line 1, leave out “28” and insert “29”.
This amendment would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Immigration Act 2024, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”.
Amendment 3, page 31, line 5, at end insert—
“(i) sections 29 and 59.”
This amendment would add sections 29 and 59 to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.
Government amendments 13 to 29.
Dame Angela Eagle
Before I speak about the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I would like to recall why the Government have brought forward the Bill. We are working to take the necessary actions to secure our borders, bring order to the chaotic immigration and asylum system we inherited, and go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security. This legislation is part of that plan for change.
For six years, the organised gangs behind small boat crossings have been allowed to take hold, so we are strengthening international partnerships, enhancing enforcement operations nationally and internationally, and equipping ourselves with the tools we need to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs, while strengthening the security of our borders. The organised immigration crime summit hosted by the Government in London last month mobilised over 40 countries and organisations to launch an unprecedented global fight against the ruthless people-smuggling gangs. The new landmark measures in the Bill will provide law enforcement agencies working across the border security system with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have asked questions in this Chamber—to be fair to the Minister, she has answered in a positive fashion—on border security in Northern Ireland; people can come from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and can then cross into the UK. It is so important that the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is closed. What in-depth discussions have taken place between the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security forces to ensure that that avenue of illegal immigration is closed for good?
Dame Angela Eagle
As I have before, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the border security force in this country works very closely with the PSNI and the Garda Síochána to deal with all potential threats in the common travel area. I assure him that we keep a very close eye on what is going on there to ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s worries are properly addressed.
The Bill strengthens the immigration and asylum system. We are repealing the costly and unworkable legislation introduced by the previous Government, and are introducing new provisions to address shortcomings, tackle harm, and build a more efficient and robust system. The Bill is about making changes to enable a properly functioning immigration and asylum system that ensures that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported, while those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections the UK has a history of providing for those in need.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is giving a really important speech on a very important subject. Does she agree that part of the issue with the asylum system is the backlog created by the previous Government, who wrongly decided that the best way to deal with the issue was to make the process take longer, as some sort of deterrent? That meant there was a huge backlog, which this Government have to tackle.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is right. We inherited a system in total chaos; asylum decision making had all but ground to a halt. Many, many tens of thousands of people were left having claimed asylum, as the law allowed them to, but unable to be processed because the previous Government passed a law that made it illegal for them to be processed. They were left in limbo. The cases were just piling up and costing the taxpayer a fortune. We have had to untangle the situation.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being most generous with her time. She will be aware that more than 600 illegal migrants have entered this country today. They could get up to all sorts of mischief, and commit crimes and maybe even acts of terrorism. Does she agree that these young men crossing the channel should be immediately detained and deported, along with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?
Dame Angela Eagle
I certainly hope that that kind of comment might be a joke. I wonder whether that kind of arbitrary treatment of people who are in this country would become the norm for Reform, if we came out of the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Member wants. We are a law-abiding Government. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has a complete right to his opinions and a complete right to express them, from whichever side of the House he sits. I have personally worked with him and have a great deal of respect for him, so I am shocked that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) thinks that an appropriate thing to say in this place.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
On a slightly more constructive point, does the Minister agree that calls for the process to allow asylum seekers to work after they have been in the country for three months would allow them to integrate more closely with their communities and to earn money to support themselves? A measure to change the arrangement from 12 months to three months would make a massive difference to asylum seekers, reduce the bill for hotels and allow people to contribute to the communities they want to be a part of.
Dame Angela Eagle
We will come to these debates when we get on to debating the new clauses to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. We have been clear from the Government Benches about the balance between respecting work visas, which people have to apply for if they are coming to work here, and allowing asylum seekers who have not applied for work to come and work at that sort of length. The change that he suggests would risk undermining the system. We have a disagreement about timing. The answer to his question is that at the moment an asylum seeker can work if their case has not been heard after 12 months, if that is through no fault of their own. We are talking about time here, and the balance between not undermining our work visa system and having a pull factor for more people to come across illegally.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for the remarks she just made. Would she accept that people who make an incredibly dangerous journey and are exploited in doing so are often totally desperate, are victims of human rights abuse and war, and have been through horrendous journeys to get there? One day, they will find somewhere where they will be able to live their lives and make a contribution to our society. As a world, do we not need to look at the plight of refugees as a whole and do much more to try to bring an end to the conditions that force people to seek these desperate journeys in the first place?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree that we in this place have to always think about the humanity involved and not try to label everybody who comes into our country when they are claiming asylum as some kind of threat or, even worse, as a terrorist or something, as was done by the hon. Member for Ashfield. We have to treat every case on its merits, and we have to treat every person as an individual human being, but we also have to recognise—the right hon. Member for Islington North needs to recognise this too—that not everybody who comes across on a boat is the kind of person he describes; some are the people running the people-smuggling gangs. A variety of humanity comes across on the boats, just as one can discover a variety of humanity if one comes across a pool of human beings anywhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Angela Eagle
I wish to get on with discussing the amendments, but because I served with him on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I will give way to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) .
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Is not the truth of the matter that showing humanity means recognising, as the Minister has implied, that some people are coming, perfectly understandably, for entirely economic reasons? If you thought you could get a better deal in Britain for you and your family, you would turn up and say you were claiming asylum on all kinds of grounds. That is the real truth of it. The system is being gamed and it has to stop being gamed.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes in some circumstances, but no in others, because some people who come over are genuine asylum seekers. Even under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—when he, too, was in the Home Office—such people were granted asylum. As always, there are many different circumstances and each case has to be looked at and judged on its merits.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am sorry, but I need to get on, because we do not have a lot of time and I think I have been generous.
The Government have tabled further amendments, to which I now wish to turn, to strengthen the Bill. First, new clause 5 extends right-to-work checks. Preventing illegal working forms a critical part of the Government’s plan to strengthen the immigration system and restore tough enforcement of the rules, undermining the proposition sold by unscrupulous criminal gangs that individuals can work in the UK. In reality, such work is illegal and puts individuals in a vulnerable position and at risk of exploitation. Legitimate businesses are undercut and the wages of lawful workers are negatively impacted, with links to other labour market abuse such as tax evasion, breach of the national minimum wage and exploitative working conditions.
Those working illegally in the UK are exploiting a loophole in the existing right-to-work scheme, whereby only those organisations that engage individuals under a contract of employment are required to carry out right-to-work checks. Government new clause 5 means that those who engage individuals to work as casual or temporary workers under a worker’s contract, individual subcontractors, and online matching services that provide details of service providers to carry out work or services for potential clients or customers for remuneration, will be legally required to check a person’s right to work. Individuals who are self-employed in the traditional sense, and who contract directly with clients, will not be in scope of new clause 5, ensuring that a member of the public directly engaging a tradesperson or business will not have to carry out a right-to-work check. That is a long overdue extension of right-to-work checks to include sectors that were previously out of scope and to crack down on the unscrupulous exploitation of employment law loopholes.
I note new clause 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and new clause 21 in the name of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on the Government’s policy on the right to work for asylum seekers, but it is important, as I said earlier, to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work. Although pull factors to the UK are complex, the perception of easy access to the labour market is among the reasons that people undertake dangerous journeys to the UK.
I turn to Government new clauses 6 and 7. First, asylum appeals in the first-tier tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber currently take an average of nearly 50 weeks, according to the latest published statistics. That is because of the huge backlogs we inherited when we came into government. Government new clauses 6 and 7 seek to set a 24-week statutory timeframe, requiring the first-tier tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber to decide supported accommodation cases and non-detained foreign national offender cases within 24 weeks from the date the appeal is lodged, as far as is reasonably practicable.
There are no easy or perfect choices here, but the Government have to take action, and we are focusing in the first instance on measures that will allow us to get people out of costly hotels and to facilitate the swift deportation of non-detained foreign national offenders, where that is in the public interest. While implementing the 24-week timeframe for supported asylum appeals and appeals from non-detained foreign national offenders, it is our expectation that the judiciary will continue to prioritise appeals lodged by detained foreign national offenders and the most vulnerable. We are working at pace in the Home Office and with the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to look at all possible improvements to the end-to-end immigration and appeals system and to the speed and efficiency of decision making and appeals, while continuing to guarantee access to justice. We will set out further reforms to the asylum system later this summer.
Jim Shannon
The Minister will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. An important thing for us is those of a Christian faith and other faiths who come here. The Government have been incredibly generous in giving them the opportunity of asylum and positions here; schemes of both the previous Government and this Government are to be commended, and I thank them. Can the Minister today assure this House, the people I represent here in this United Kingdom and those from overseas that there will still be the opportunity for those who are persecuted because of their faith to come here and claim asylum?
Dame Angela Eagle
None of the changes that I have talked about in the new clauses will impinge at all on the criteria currently used to determine whether somebody has a need for protection under the refugee convention. Clearly, in certain circumstances that includes the reality of religious persecution in the homeland. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Government new clause 8 redefines how the UK interprets the phrase “a particularly serious crime” for the purpose of excluding refugees from the protection against refoulement. Under existing arrangements, anyone convicted of any offence that attracts a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will have committed a particularly serious crime for these purposes. Those arrangements remain unchanged, but new clause 8 goes further and will mean that a particularly serious crime will now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Importantly for these cases, the fact that a particularly serious crime has been committed will be a presumption that can, obviously, be rebutted by the individual in question so that they get a fair hearing.
Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act lists the offences that automatically make an offender subject to notification requirements, meaning that they have to notify the police of personal details annually, or whenever their details change. Failure to do so is a criminal offence and the system is sometimes known as the sex offenders register. The Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims in our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade. To achieve that, a broad set of the right powers must be available for authorities to tackle sexual crimes, bring perpetrators to justice and manage sex offenders.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I accept the wisdom behind this new clause, but will the Minister go further and comment on new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? That new clause is designed to put an end to another mischief affecting the non-refoulement rules; it would ensure that primacy was given to the torture convention and the refugee convention, and that it was not possible for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the European convention on human rights in such a way as to exclude those provisions.
Dame Angela Eagle
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his creativity in asking that question when I am talking about this particular Government new clause. I think we had a debate in Committee on the amendment in the name of the Father of the House, and I certainly intend to come on to it later in our proceedings—hopefully, when he is here.
As part of our efforts to halve violence against women and girls, it is important that the small number of asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing sexual crimes, but they have undermined public confidence in the system. New clause 8 changes the law to deny refugee status to those convicted of the abhorrent crimes listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, treating them with the seriousness they deserve and supporting our wider mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The trouble is that, when the judiciary get hold of this and there is an appeal, they very often cite exceptional circumstances, which are cited in the original legislation but have been interpreted over the years in a very liberal way—so much so as to be almost meaningless. Will the Minister define more clearly what exceptional circumstances are, so that there can be no doubt in the minds of lawyers about who might be eligible for appeal against decisions made by the Home Office, and who is not?
Dame Angela Eagle
Certainly we will come into the detail of how this works once it is on the statute book, in the guidance that is issued, but I am making it very clear to the House tonight that the Government wish those few people—the very small number of asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of serious sexual offences such that they have been put on the sex offenders register—to be denied refugee status. We will also deny refugee status where we are able to show that an individual has been convicted in a foreign court for a crime that would have fallen under schedule 3 to the 2003 Act if they had been convicted in the UK. Those convicted and made subject to the notification requirements have committed the most serious of sexual offences, which should be included in the definition of a particularly serious crime.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Does the Minister find it strange that in a debate on a Bill so important to Reform UK—indeed, it is the party’s raison d’être—80% of Reform UK MPs have left the Chamber and are, presumably, in the pub?
Dame Angela Eagle
I think they probably call that campaigning, but it is up to them to justify how long they spend in the pub, or indeed in this Chamber.
Moving to serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders, Government amendments 14 to 19 will remove Scotland and Northern Ireland from clause 48, which allows electronic monitoring as a condition of serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders in terrorism-related cases. The amendments will ensure that the devolved Governments retain full legislative competence over their existing electronic monitoring regimes.
For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on the gargantuan group of amendments we are dealing with tonight.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 18, and to various other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who are sitting beside me. They toiled with enormous fortitude and patience through 12 Committee sittings. They did extremely diligent and good work, and I put on record my thanks to them both.
The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled are made necessary by the Government’s abject and appalling failure, since they came to office last July, to control small boat crossings of the English channel. They came to office saying that they would “smash the gangs”, a claim that is now in tatters. Let us take a look at what they have done since 4 July last year. Since the election, 35,048 people have illegally crossed the English channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period the previous year.
This year—2025—how is smashing the gangs going so far? Well, 11,806 people have crossed, which is the worst start to a year in history. That is an appalling and abject failure, for which this Government are responsible. Yesterday alone, 232 people crossed, and we understand that today, as we stand here, several hundred more people have made that illegal crossing. There is no control over who they are. There are suggestions that some of the suspects in the recent Iranian terror case were living in asylum accommodation and may therefore have crossed by small boat. I certainly recall that some people crossing the channel had very serious prior convictions. The Government have no idea who these people are, and they certainly have no control.
The people crossing are almost entirely young men. They have pushed themselves to the front of the queue by paying people smugglers. I do not see them as victims; they are committing a criminal offence by entering the United Kingdom in this way. It is a criminal offence contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as I am sure everybody knows.
Chris Philp
If the former leader of the Liberal Democrats wants to say something to the contrary, I would be glad to give way.
Tim Farron
I could not help myself, I’m afraid. Some 87% of Eritreans coming over are refugees. The right hon. Gentleman talks about young men. The refugees are young men, because Christian young men in Eritrea are conscripted to murder their own communities, so of course they are disproportionately represented. Why does he not take part in this debate on the basis of evidence, rather than playing tabloid nonsense?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman will know that around the world, there are very many female and child refugees. The last Government welcomed many of them here under the UK resettlement scheme from Syria. The young men who push themselves to the front of the queue in Calais are displacing potentially more deserving applicants. They are embarking from France, which is a manifestly safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. Nobody—including young men from Eritrea—needs to leave France to seek sanctuary when they can perfectly well claim asylum in France. Article 31 of the refugee convention, which in general terms prohibits the criminalisation of refugees, expressly says that that only applies if someone comes “directly” from a place of danger. France is not a place of danger. Much better that we choose the deserving cases, rather than having people pay criminal gangs to enter this country illegally from a place, namely France, which is safe.
Dr Luke Evans
The last Government introduced the idea of having age verification. That is important, because the evidence supports the suggestion that some young men claim to be younger than they are. Many other countries use medical age verification systems. Does my right hon. Friend have a reason why the Government decided not to take our amendments forward in Committee, and why they are not considering implementing them now?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. In fact, he draws me to new clause 12, which we tabled. It mandates the Government to get on with implementing scientific age assessments, which scientifically verify if someone is or is not over the age of 18. Every other European country uses these tests. It could be, for example, an X-ray of the wrist.
Chris Philp
I will give way in a minute. There are more complicated techniques these days, such as testing DNA methylation, and other less intrusive tests. We are the only country not to use them.
Many people who illegally cross the channel claim to be under 18—they usually claim to be 17—when common sense would often suggest that they are far older. There are documented cases where men with beards have ended up in schools with teenage girls. [Interruption.] I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) in a moment. I ask the Minister, when she replies, to explain to the House her plans for introducing these tests. We are an outlier in Europe; we are the only country not to use them. It is important from a safeguarding perspective to make sure that people who claim to be 17 really are 17, and not in their mid-20s. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal was very keen to intervene, and I think enthusiasm deserves its reward.
Mike Tapp
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his condescending tone after his deluded rant. I must say to him that he is misleading the House: 400 crossed in 2018, and more than 150,000 have crossed since. The majority of those were on the Conservative Government’s watch, so how they can claim that that happened on Labour’s watch is beyond me. As the new expert—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has had long enough for his very brief intervention.
Chris Philp
I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman has had long enough, and his constituents may well agree in a few years’ time. I gave the figures very clearly: since the election, 35,000 people have crossed the channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period a year before. So far, this year has been the worst year on record—the worst year in history—for illegal channel crossings. The claims to smash the gangs lie in tatters.
Dame Angela Eagle
We missed the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee. Given the sophistication of the organised immigration crime threat to the country, will he explain why he plans on voting against the Bill tonight when it provides counter-terrorism style powers that the National Crime Agency and our security services have told us they want to be able to bring to bear on this serious question?
Chris Philp
I missed being in Committee as well, and I missed the prospect of spending hours and hours in the hon. Lady’s company. Perhaps on some other occasion an opportunity will present itself.
The hon. Lady invites me to comment on a Third Reading matter, but since she asked the question, when we vote on a Bill at Third Reading—a yes or no vote—we are voting on it in its totality. While the counter-terror measures may have a very marginal benefit—it will be no more than marginal, as she should know—the Bill will also do some extremely damaging things that will make it a lot harder to control our borders. For example, clause 38 repeals pretty much the entirety of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
Chris Philp
I will answer the question first.
Among other things, the Illegal Migration Act requires the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally, and it says there is no path to citizenship for somebody who comes to this country illegally, which is a very sensible measure. This Bill repeals almost all of that. The Bill also removes from the statute book the legislative basis to implement a removals deterrent. One of the first things the Government did on coming into office was cancel the Rwanda scheme.
Chris Philp
No, I will answer the question first.
The Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. The first flight had been due to take off on 24 July. Everybody, including the National Crime Agency, has warned that without a removals deterrent we are not going to stop the boats. Law enforcement alone—important though it is—is not enough, and a border security commander with no powers is certainly not enough.
Experience from around the world shows that we need a removals deterrent. If people enter the UK illegally from France and are rapidly removed to somewhere else, be it Rwanda or elsewhere, others will not attempt the crossing because they know that removal will follow. Australia tried something very similar about 10 years ago—it was called Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia had a bigger problem than we did—at that time there were 50,000 people a year crossing—and within the space of only a few months, the removals deterrent it used stopped the illegal maritime arrivals, as Australia called them, entirely. The number went to zero, and it saved lives in the process. Australia used an island called Nauru rather than Rwanda, but the principle is the same.
Home Office Ministers must by now be regretting their hastiness, because in the absence of any removals deterrent, the numbers have gone through the roof. As I said already, this year so far has been the worst in history. Without a removals deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the crossings.
Clause 37 of the Bill repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and amendment 32 seeks to remove clause 37. There will probably come a time—if not today, then in six months; and if not in six months, then in 12 months—when Labour Ministers will realise that their plans are not working, that the numbers are getting worse, and that without a removals deterrent they are not going to stop the boats. That is why this Bill and their policy is so misguided, and it is why the numbers this year have been the worst in history.
Jo White
I wonder whether the shadow Home Secretary could comment on the views of his colleague the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who said during the Public Bill Committee that
“immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 347.]
I wonder whether he could also comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who said in Committee:
“The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 335.]
Chris Philp
I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment.
It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Talking of the Rwanda scheme, the previous Tory Government spent £700 million on a scheme that saw four volunteers removed. That figure included £290 million given to Rwanda for nothing in return and £134 million on IT systems that were never used. Can we get a refund?
Chris Philp
As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions.
While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.
Chris Philp
I will make some progress.
Turning to the amendments on indefinite leave to remain, new clause 11 would limit eligibility for ILR to 10 years, and new clause 17 would set various conditions on ILR. New clause 17 essentially says that to get ILR after 10 years a person has to have made an economic contribution, and cannot be a burden on other taxpayers. Those strike me as very fair measures.
I notice that in the immigration announcement by the Prime Minister this morning, he made reference to 10 years for ILR, despite the fact that the Minister and her colleagues voted against that measure just a few weeks ago. I wonder what has magically changed their minds. If they are serious about such a measure, will they support new clause 11, which would implement what the Prime Minister announced this morning, and vote for it later today?
If I understand the Prime Minister’s announcement correctly, he said that when someone reaches 10 years of residence, they automatically qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Government’s proposals. What we propose in new clause 17 is that there should be conditionality, even after 10 years. The person should be making some kind of contribution to the country in order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with that approach and therefore support new clause 17?
I will turn now to the two new clauses that we intend to push to a vote this evening. First, new clause 18 would establish a binding cap on immigration numbers each year, to be voted on in Parliament. It would be democratically accountable and completely transparent. It will be up to Parliament to debate what the number should be, but I would argue that it should be a lot lower than any recent number we have seen, and indeed a lot lower than the recent forecasts from the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Chris Philp
Let me finish my point.
The critical point is that whatever one’s views on the number, it would be Parliament that voted to cap migration every year. Never again would we see immigration rise to levels far higher than anyone intended. We would never again see unintended consequences, where visa rules are set up but numbers end up being much higher. A good example of that is the health and social care visa, which was initially supposed to be for only a few thousand people but ended up being for hundreds of thousands. With a cap mechanism in place, that would never happen again.
I invite the Minister to tell me, when she responds, whether she would support a binding annual cap, decided by this Parliament. Will she support democratic accountability for that number, and if not, why on earth not? I can see no reason at all why this elected Parliament should not set the limit each year and why we should instead end up with numbers that many of us would think are far too high.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with great confidence, as ever—and great volume, I have to say. He is very clear about having the cap, but it is less clear what level he believes it should be set at. He says that it should be lower than the current numbers, but from his experience and with his confidence, what level does he feel it should be set at? What would his first proposal be for the cap?
Chris Philp
How about the hon. Gentleman votes for the cap this evening, and then we can debate what level it should be set at? We are not going to debate the level of a cap that currently does not even exist. His own Front Benchers are trying to deny him and every Member of this House a voice on this issue. If Labour Members believe in Parliament deciding these issues and in democratic accountability, they will vote for new clause 18 and let Parliament decide what the cap should be.
Dr Luke Evans
The cap idea builds on work that the last Government wanted to bring forward in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The last Government asked councils to work out how many they could accommodate. It seems remarkably practical to say that while we are a generous nation able to look after people in need, that comes with a capacity. The whole idea would be to implement a cap and for all councils in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to say what number they could hold, and for us to vote on it as a nation. Is that something my right hon. Friend would consider when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is germane to the earlier discussion about people crossing the channel illegally. So long as we have 11,000 or 12,000 people crossing the channel a year—as I said, this is the worst year ever—it is very difficult to create safe and legal routes, because our capacity is completely taken up by people entering the country illegally.
If we can stop illegal migration by using the measures I suggested, and a removals deterrent in particular, that will create capacity for a limited safe and legal route for people who we—the Government and Parliament—judge to be deserving. We did that for the Syria crisis, where the UK resettlement scheme went to refugee camps on the Syrian borders, identified the most vulnerable refugees—often women and children—and brought them to the UK, instead of having people crossing the channel illegally and pushing their way to the front of the queue. That is exactly what a new, tougher approach on illegal immigration would facilitate.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Chris Philp
I am going to make a bit of progress.
The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone.
The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments.
A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders?
In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950.
That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.
Chris Philp
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will follow your injunction to wind up. Of course, we need to pay attention to the rights and protection of children, but having people smuggled across the English channel on boats does not in any way help with that.
If the Government are serious about getting back control of the immigration system and stopping illegal immigration, they will support our measures that would put a cap on migration and repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We will start with an immediate four-minute time limit, with the exception of Front-Bench speeches and any maiden speeches.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The intention to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 through this Bill, and the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme in particular, are extremely welcome. Years of brutal Tory policies that have criminalised, persecuted and scapegoated migrants and those seeking safety on our shores must be unravelled by this Labour Government, but we must go further, faster, and turn our back entirely on the politics of hate and division if we are to avoid repeats of the recent election results.
The riots that took place in my city last year, which targeted asylum accommodation and organisations and visibly black people and businesses, did not emerge from nowhere; they were the result of the myths and misinformation perpetuated by media and social media. For our Prime Minister to say today that unfettered immigration risks the UK becoming “an island of strangers” is deeply concerning. We cannot concede to the anti-migrant agenda promoted by those who thrive on division. It is simply dishonest to suggest that migration causes falling living standards. It is not migrants but political decisions that have hollowed out our communities, brought public services to their knees and allowed inequality to run rampant.
I am proud of my African and Irish heritage, and proud that my home, Liverpool, is a city of sanctuary. However, I am not proud of some of the language being used today, particularly the phrase, “island of strangers,” which echoes the devices and cruel politics of our past. I have had constituents say that it is reminiscent of the “rivers of blood” speech. Mine is a port city, where people arrive from all over the globe, and our city is far better for it. These people are neighbours and friends. Liverpool has a world-leading higher education sector; thousands of international students want to train there. I have spoken to the vice-chancellors of Liverpool Hope University and Liverpool John Moores University, who are both concerned about the announcements made today.
The Labour Government must unequivocally make the case that the fight against racism and scapegoating is the same fight as that against low pay, poor housing and crumbling public services. We cannot defeat one without the other. While the Bill goes some way towards repairing the damage done by the previous Government, the overall approach remains punitive, particularly in clause 41, which will expand the Home Office’s power of detention retrospectively. The new criminal offences in parts 1 and 2 are deeply concerning, as is the retention of section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which removes protections for victims of modern slavery, and section 59 of that Act, which makes asylum and human rights claims from a list of countries inadmissible. Instead, we should focus on restoring the right to seek asylum in the UK, opening up safe routes, abandoning offshore processing, resolving the legal aid crisis, restoring the right to work, increasing support rates for asylum seekers and ending the use of immigration detention and harmful, destructive rhetoric—in short, we should focus on building a compassionate, rights-based and evidence-led approach to immigration and asylum.
I am proud to have added my name in support of new clause 1, which would enshrine in law a duty on the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics—detailed information—on deaths in the asylum system and on small boat channel crossings. We know that lives are being lost, but we do not know how many, which makes our system an outlier. I call on the Home Secretary to take on board those comments.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 21 and other new clauses in my name and those of other hon. Members. I put on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster), and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), for the sterling shifts they put in on the Bill Committee.
We can all agree on the need to stop these perilous channel crossings, but under the Conservatives, safe and legal routes were dismantled, forcing vulnerable people into the hands of criminal gangs. Meanwhile, the asylum system was left to rot, and a staggering backlog grew year after year. Now we have thousands of people stuck in limbo, unable to work, rebuild their life or contribute to the UK economy, while taxpayers foot the bill for hotel accommodation in communities like mine.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that, despite what she has just said, under the last term of the Conservative Government, record numbers of people came here through resettlement schemes, which are safe and legal routes?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on me in debates on immigration; this is not the first time we have had a conversation of this nature. Ukrainians and Hongkongers came here under the previous Government, and that is to be welcomed—
Lisa Smart
And Afghans; the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. But there are countries in the world—Eritrea, Sudan and others—from which there are no safe and legal routes, and that is what new clause 21 is about.
The Home Secretary said in the White Paper published this morning that we need an immigration system that is “fair and effective”, and I strongly agree with her. The current system is neither, and I would have liked to have seen more in the Bill to change that. The Liberal Democrats believe in a common-sense immigration and asylum system that treats people with dignity. That means scrapping headline-chasing gimmicks, such as the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan, investing in swift decision making, and tackling the problem of criminal gangs at its root. We welcome some of the measures in the Bill to achieve those ends, but one of the most glaring injustices of our system is the ban on work for people seeking asylum. Right now, those who have been waiting months and months for a decision are barred from working to support themselves and their family, and from contributing to the economy. That is wasteful and demoralising; it is a lose-lose for everyone. New clause 21 in my name would change that. It proposes that if someone has been waiting for more than three months, they should be able to pay their fair share.
I know from those seeking asylum in my area that these are people who want to pay their way, contribute their skills and taxes and be part of the local community. We should not be stopping them. This is about common sense. Giving people the right to work will ease the pressure on public finances and give dignity back to those caught up in the system. It will help employers to fill vacancies at a time of work shortages, and allow asylum seekers to build the foundations of a new life. I urge colleagues across the House to support this new clause. It is the fair and practical thing to do, and it benefits us all.
Any Government serious about tackling the smuggling gangs—and I believe that this Government are—must cut off the gangs’ business model at the source. New clauses 22 and 36 would require the Government to set out new safe and legal routes, giving those fleeing persecution a proper alternative to dangerous crossings. The lack of these routes is a direct cause of the current crisis. We cannot keep saying that we want to stop the boats while slamming shut every door to safety for those who need it. There must certainly be greater scope for family reunion. No child should have to face the trauma of fleeing war or persecution alone, only to be denied proper contact with their loved ones. New clause 27 would widen family reunion rules, so that unaccompanied child refugees could be joined by their closest relatives.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
On the point about reuniting families, the shadow Minister seemed to be utterly bemused as to why so many migrants and illegal immigrants are male. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the Doctors without Borders report that showed that a large number of sub-Saharan African women were being injected with such high levels of contraceptive as to make them permanently infertile, because they were being raped so many times on their way here that they could not then work to pay off their debt, because they were pregnant. A fairer system would allow more women and children to come to the UK.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is one of a number of utterly hideous stories that any of us could hear through any of the wonderful bodies and non-governmental organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees who are coming to this country. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend from the other place, Baroness Hamwee, who has done a huge amount of work on family reunification. This is about basic humanity. These children need safety and the support of their families to truly rebuild their life.
People smuggling of the type that this Government are trying to crack down on is an international problem, and we cannot solve it by going it alone. New clauses 23 to 26 will bolster our co-operation with Europol, encourage regular meetings with its leadership and establish joint taskforces, ensure more resources and provide a transparent system of reporting back to Parliament. To dismantle these smuggling networks, we need to work hand in glove with our European allies. This Bill could go further to strengthen those vital ties. The UK should be leading on this, not lagging behind.
The Liberal Democrats will keep fighting for a system that is fair, fast and humane, in which there are safe routes, families can be reunited, and those who come here are treated with dignity and can contribute to their new communities. Our new clauses offer practical steps to rebuilding an asylum system that works for all of us, and I urge the House to back them today for practical, humane and effective solutions.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. I thank the Ministers and members of the Public Bill Committee for their work on this Bill, which I continue to support as a whole.
My constituents in Folkestone and Hythe want to see Parliament give our law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to tackle these highly sophisticated, organised criminals. The small boats industry, which was allowed to run for years under the Conservatives, flourished in part because of the lack of powers for the National Crime Agency and the lack of co-ordination with our European partners. We absolutely do not need the performative politics of the Conservatives, including their new clause 14 to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration functions.
We have just had the VE Day 80th anniversary, and it was that fundamentally important victory over tyranny in Europe that led to European democracies uniting to safeguard the rights of everyone living in Europe. When I met Ukrainian politicians at the Council of Europe in January this year, they were very clear that they need human rights, the rule of law, democracy and unity of values in Europe, and they need us, the United Kingdom, to help them in their fight against an enemy that lacks those principles.
We are at a point in history when it is more important than ever to be clear about our values, what makes our society one to be proud of, and what we have in common with our neighbours and friends. Rightly, the Government will not disapply the Human Rights Act from one group today; maybe the Conservatives would want to deprive another group of it tomorrow. The Opposition’s new clause, which I will oppose, is a reminder of this important dividing line in our politics.
I also want to comment on new clause 3 on safe and managed routes to asylum. I raised this issue in the Chamber on Second Reading. I fully accept that safe routes will not, on their own, stop small boat crossings; that is why we need the enforcement measures in this Bill. However, it is unsustainable to continue to make it virtually impossible to claim asylum lawfully, and then criminalise those who have made valid claims, but who have no lawful means of accessing the asylum system. I am grateful to the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for agreeing to meet me next week to discuss this issue. A recent report by the APPG on refugees proposed a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here, so that their claim could be fully examined on UK soil. That would build an evidence base on the issue, to inform future policy.
Finally, on British citizenship, though the Government are repealing the measure that bars citizenship for those arriving unlawfully, they have effectively reintroduced it via policy. I would ask them to rethink their approach. By the time a person in that situation applies for citizenship, they will have been granted asylum, having a well-founded claim. They will have been here for over five or six years; they will be of entirely good character; and they may be making a valid contribution to our society. However, because of their method of entry all those years ago, they could be prevented from accessing citizenship and integrating in this country. We need measures to promote, rather than hinder, the integration of those lawfully present here. Despite these points, I support the Bill, and thank the Government and Members for their work on it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my work with the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.
New clause 21 would help the Government to tackle poverty, prevent homelessness and demonstrate competence. Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget because they could instead support themselves. It would help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if asylum seekers were seen to be paying their way. It would also reduce the need to use hotels to house asylum seekers. Those seeking asylum should have the dignity of being able to work, and the taxpayer should get the benefit of the massively reduced costs that that would bring.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent Walthamstow; once upon a time, the architect of the ECHR, Winston Churchill, was our constituency next-door neighbour. But let us be under no illusions and let us be frank, because people in this Chamber will write off my corner of London as some nirvana of good relations and say that we do not get issues or challenges with immigration: we have people in our community who judge people on the basis of their skin colour and who listen to the social media tropes; and we have people who seek division, who share that common aim and who will find somebody to blame rather than a solution for the challenges we face. Legislation needs to counter that, not facilitate it, because the reality is that across this country there are too many people with too much month at the end of their money, and it is too easy to tell those people that immigrants are the reason why, rather than telling them the truth.
The people in my community are not woke; they are wise. They get that some are trying to tell them that immigrants are the problem, when the truth is that it is actually politicians who do not face up to the challenges we have. People in my community, like those across this country—whether they are old friends or strangers, incomers from Hackney or even further afield—can all find common ground if they do not get their bins collected, if they cannot park their cars or if they feel that their children are at risk. In this country, people find humanity in each other—in our common grumbles. That is what it means to be British: to have a moan about the reality of daily life. Those who want to divide us—who tell us the way forward is finding somebody to blame rather than a solution to the challenges—do nobody a service.
Let us talk about what we could do in this Bill to make things better. I support new clause 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) from the other end of the Victoria line. We should not be making a profit from children who are seeking to be citizens who have the right to remain here.
I draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 44, which I have tabled. We could learn from Australia and New Zealand—those bastions of progressive immigration policy—and introduce a worker’s justice visa. We really need to help overseas workers in our communities who are at the behest of their sponsors. It is outrageous that there are people in this country whose future relies on somebody else’s largesse, rather than their basic human rights. We can learn from Australia and New Zealand in introducing such a visa in order to correct the issue whereby somebody who is clearly a victim of modern slavery cannot stay in the country to pursue that claim, so the person making them a slave cannot be held to account.
Chris Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have significant problems in this country as the system to address modern slavery has degraded? Will she join me in pushing for the national referral mechanism to be reviewed, as the Government promised, to tackle exactly what she is talking about?
Ms Creasy
Absolutely. Let me be clear: I recognise that my suggestion will not address all the issues with overseas domestic workers, but a worker’s justice visa could be the start of ensuring that our immigration system is more functional.
I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 45, which is about the “good character requirement”. It makes no sense to those of us concerned about integration to say to somebody that they may stay in this country—that they have a well-founded fear of persecution—but that they will never be able to make a life here, that they will always end up paying more for their mortgage because they will not be able to get a proper income, and that they will never be able to get jobs as easily as others, so they might be more dependent on benefits. That is what happens when we start denying citizenship to people who have the right to be here.
The Refugee Council recognises that the requirement will affect 71,000 people because it is retrospective. It is little wonder that a court case is now in train. Bad policymaking in the face of social media tropes does nobody any favours, and I urge Ministers to look again at the provision. New clause 45 is simple: it is about us upholding our international obligations. It is about saying that if there was a safe route, absolutely it would be bad character not to use it, but I would love some Opposition Members, who are no longer in their place, to tell me what the safe route from Iran is, when many people on the boats are from Iran.
We have to get immigration policy right. I stand here as somebody who does not want open borders. I want a fair and just immigration service. I learned in my first year in this place from the former Home Secretary Jack Straw, who told me there were two divides: left and right, and those people who had to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who did not. The legislation before us does many welcome things, but it also does things that I fear we will come to regret in future—just as we will come to regret pandering to those who wish to divide us, rather than getting on and sorting out why we still have a cost of living crisis.
The Government will have my support if they want to do more to bring people together, not just by sorting out bin collections—that perennial challenge—but by investing in everybody, whether they were born here or have come here to make a contribution. After all, those of us with refugee heritage—whether we were Huguenots, Farages or Creasys—deserve and need better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We will now start a three-minute time limit.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My constituency has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions.
The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months. Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it.
I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them.
Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so. Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about the help that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I welcome the Government’s action in the Bill to repeal parts of the previous Government’s repeated gimmicks and nonsense legislation in the last Parliament. I will speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 37, all of which I have sponsored.
New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend—apologies, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome); she is not right honourable, but she should be. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and small boat channel crossings. Under the last Government, a horrifying number of refugees and people seeking asylum died trying to cross the channel and in Home Office accommodation. In 2024, that number reached a record high. Despite daily and weekly reports on the number of people stopped or deported, we still do not have regular, clear and transparent reporting on those who have lost their lives in the system. That is incredibly important, not just morally but in order to address the evidence gap, so that we get policy right.
New clause 2 would require reports on the right to work. I heard what the Minister said about this being a discussion about time, but mental health and working rights are not separate issues. The majority of asylum seekers in the UK are unable to work and use their skills to support themselves and their families or even to save enough to rent a home. Instead, they are trapped, isolated, inactive and dependent on state support. There are countless compelling reasons why asylum seekers should be allowed to work like the rest of the population. Given the huge amount of support that idea has from the public and businesses, we should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise why the ban remains and the impact that it is having. If we want integration, why not let people work in their communities and build English language skills?
Finally, new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), seeks to ensure that children born in the UK who have grown up here and know no other home are not priced out of citizenship simply because of their parents’ immigration status at the time of their birth. Such young people are part of our communities, schools and the fabric of our future. They should not be denied their rights or go on to face barriers in education, housing, healthcare and across society. They are not “strangers”; they are our friends and neighbours.
Some have stoked racist divisions against migrants—a drum that the far right have continually banged since—and the whole House must oppose that rhetoric. Amid rising anti-refugee sentiment, including last year’s shocking riots, it could not be more urgent or valuable to enable people to feel secure and contribute to their communities. I am aghast at some of the amendments tabled by Opposition parties, particularly new clause 41. I wonder how many ruined lives those Members will consider too many. It is shameful to see the victimisation of people who have come here to find safety.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sarah Pochin to make her maiden speech.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by saying how delighted I am that my colleagues have dragged themselves out of the pub to join me for my maiden speech? I am so proud to be in this place; I feel so privileged to be here. I hope that I will make a good contribution to the business of this place, with my background of 20 years of public service as a magistrate and a borough councillor.
I thank all the voters of Runcorn and Helsby who put their trust in me. It certainly was an historic night—one that I will never forget. We had a recount at about 3 o’clock in the morning, and the result finally came through at about 6 o’clock—and there were six votes in it, so I think six is probably my lucky number from now on. We certainly put Runcorn and Helsby on the map. It is the closest ever parliamentary by-election result. There was lots of drama and it made for some great headlines the next day—well, great headlines for us, anyway.
I thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, Mike Amesbury. In 2020 he won a ballot to introduce a Bill of his choice. He chose to focus on the cost of living crisis by limiting the cost of school uniforms. His Bill gathered cross-party support and became the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act 2021.
I, too, will focus on the cost of living. During the campaign, it was raised with me endlessly on the doorstep by voters who feel let down by this Government—voters who have lost their winter fuel allowance, who have had their disability benefit slashed or who have seen their energy costs go through the roof when they were promised that their bills would go down.
It is very important that I make my maiden speech today. There were a few raised eyebrows, as I have been here less than a week, but the Bill is important because it is so relevant to what I believe in. There are over 900 illegal immigrants—that we know about—living in Runcorn. Some 400 of them are housed in an asylum hotel—the Daresbury Park hotel, which was, incidentally, to be shut down by the Government during the election campaign, but is, of course, still open—while the remaining 500 or so are housed in houses of multiple occupancy in the community. The recent Government announcement encouraging private landlords to give up their properties to house illegal immigrants in order to get a five-year guarantee of rent and all the property maintenance paid for will only make that situation worse. We will end up with British tenants being evicted, rents being forced up and the already limited housing supply getting worse.
The problem for communities in places such as Runcorn is that those houses of multiple occupancy often have 15 to 20 young men in them. Families living nearby have to put up with antisocial behaviour through the night, drug dealing, people coming and going, and noise. I saw the CCTV throughout the campaign; I have heard the stories. People are frightened to go out. They will certainly not let their children play out on the pavements when there are such houses on their street. We know that these HMOs are breeding grounds for organised crime gangs, whether they are involved in drugs or people trafficking, or whether they are grooming gangs—something that was recently downplayed by the Leader of the House. Tackling sexual violence against women and the abuse of women and promoting the safety of women and children are things I will champion, not deny.
I hope that my background in the justice system will give substance to my contributions on subjects that are close to my heart, such as the current state of our prisons and the daily threat that our brave prison officers—men and women—face at work. Over the last couple of days, there was yet another example of what they are facing in the news. I will also be a strong voice against the prosecutions of our Northern Ireland veterans, who were so brave on our behalf in the troubles. I will be brave, as they were for us, and I will stand up for what is right and fair.
My constituency was formed in the boundary changes last year by five other constituencies lending areas to its geography. Not only is it new; it is diverse. It is home to some of the wealthiest and to some of the poorest. It is home to a beautiful and vibrant market town, Frodsham, and to Runcorn old town, which is in decline and in desperate need of investment. It has beautiful, leafy villages and housing estates battling drug crime and antisocial behaviour. I have lots of wonderful businesses in the constituency, ranging from the chemical industry and the farming industry right through to the science park.
There are many challenges ahead and the problems I am going to take on, on behalf of my constituents, include the drastic shortage of housing and the desperate need for investment and regeneration in the old town. The standard of education in the five secondary schools is at best average and at worst way below average. Somebody needs to highlight these issues. We have an incinerator that churns out toxic waste, and an investigation into the health implications is ongoing. And then we have the white elephant that is the net zero project, with carbon capture and storage, and an extensive solar panel farm right across the middle of the constituency. I will challenge the people who have put those policies in place; I will speak for the people who have for so long lacked the representation they deserve. This constituency has huge potential; it has hard-working people who just want fairness and I will be their voice.
To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) for his vision, his commitment and his conviction, which have brought a new voice to this Chamber. I will stand up for what is right, and I say to all my colleagues in this House that they will find me fair, principled and here to serve my constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been asked many times over the last 10 days whether I am overwhelmed by recent events and by being in this place. I am not overwhelmed; I am deeply respectful of this place, I am humbled by this place, but I am ready for this place.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow that eloquent and impassioned maiden speech by our new colleague, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I can tell that we will be hearing a lot more from her in this House, and while I am sure that her colleagues are pleased to have their number back up to five, I think we can all understand that her lucky number is six.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I would like to make a couple of points about the amendments, drawing on the evidence we heard in Committee.
The purpose of this legislation is to stop the small boat crossings in the channel. They are too dangerous and too many vulnerable people die in the attempt. They represent a lack of grip on the immigration system, because it should be the Government who decide who comes into this country, not people smugglers. The previous approach manifestly failed. That is because the Rwanda scheme meant we could never reduce demand enough. As Dr Walsh from the Migration Observatory told us in our evidence sessions, demand for crossing the channel is essentially inelastic and we will never get it down enough. Deterrence alone therefore will not work. If we want proof, we should consider that of all the asylum seekers in the system, those who went to Rwanda represent one 4,000th of 1%. Rather than tackle demand, we should tackle supply. We need to make it harder to get in boats and to organise crossings, and we need to disrupt the supply chain that drives this multimillion-pound industry and seize the phones of those making the crossing.
On new clause 3 on safe routes, let us be clear that there is absolutely a wider case to be made for safe routes and there is a national obligation to help where we can, but let us also be clear that safe routes already exist at significant scale. Some 500,000 people sought sanctuary in the UK through them over the last few years. We must be clear, too, that given the vast numbers of people in the asylum system just now, no one can argue that Britain does not have enough refugees. Most importantly, safe routes fall into the same logical trap as the Rwanda scheme, in that they aim to reduce demand rather than to tackle supply. Rwanda said, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you’ll be sent to Rwanda instead.” Safe routes say, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you can come through safe routes instead.”
The purpose of the Bill is to reduce channel crossings. There are good arguments for safe routes on many levels, but having worked on migration policy for 15 years before coming here, I know we have to recognise that they will not play a role in reducing this cross-channel travel.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Government’s repeal of the vile and illegal Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are welcome, but they must do more to repeal the underlying legal framework, which continues to undermine the UK’s ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights. The Illegal Migration Act simply does not belong on the statute book, and my preference would be to scrap the lot of it. My amendment 35 at least seeks to restore judicial oversight of decisions about detention. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that without my amendment 35, a software engineer who overstayed her visa could be detained for longer than a suspected terrorist, and with far less judicial oversight.
Turning to my new clause 38, I am disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when Labour rightly opposed that legislation in its entirety on its Second Reading. That Act marked the UK’s move away from upholding the 1951 refugee convention and instead denies the right to territorial asylum, yet this Labour Government have chosen to leave the Act on the statute book, untouched by this Bill. My new clause 38 focuses on undoing the provisions that penalise and criminalise people who make unsafe journeys to the UK to seek sanctuary. It scraps the parts that create an unfair two-tier asylum system with differential treatment for different groups of people—a proposal so unworkable that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to pause it when in government. Crucially, it scraps the law that criminalises people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork with a penalty of up to four years in prison. This law is clearly contrary to article 31.1 of the 1951 refugee convention, which provides immunity from penalties in recognition of the fact that refugees are often compelled to arrive without appropriate documents in order to access their human rights under that convention. Lastly, my new clause 38 would scrap sections 30 to 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sought to—I will put it charitably—poorly reinterpret the refugee convention.
I wish to highlight the fact that the Government are leaving on the statute book measures that unjustly penalise and criminalise refugees for arriving irregularly when there are no safe and managed routes to travel here to claim asylum for the vast majority of people who might need and be eligible to do so. In the words of Warsan Shire:
“no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land”.
This Government are clearly focused on appearing tough on immigration, and to do so they have brought in some of the previous Government’s cruel policies and introduced some of their own—
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I want to speak in
support of new clause 37, which stands in my name, but I will begin by addressing the political theatre that often surrounds immigration. Politicians constantly speak about immigration, spinning fear and suspicion, and then conveniently report back that immigration is a top concern for voters, when it is not. Recent polls show clearly that immigration does not feature in the top concerns among those who were considering voting Labour but did not. Instead, people are talking about tangible issues, such as the winter fuel allowance, the rising cost of living and the desperate need to fund our public services. Rather than dealing with those issues, we choose to stoke division with sentiments about “strangers”.
I want to be crystal clear: immigration is not the crisis. What we are facing is the crisis in how we treat people, value rights and understand our responsibilities to one another. The focus seems always to be on small boat crossings, but irregular migration—people arriving by boats—accounts for just a fraction of the nearly 1 million people who came to this country last year. I do not call then “illegal migrants” as that term is morally degrading and asylum seekers have the right under international law to seek refuge. If we want to resolve these issues, we need to start with safe and legal routes.
Regular migration has soared since 2021, under the Tories and post Brexit, because the Government’s own policies created this situation. The points-based immigration system was always designed to encourage people to come here—and they have. So the issue is not migration itself, but the exploitative business model behind it. Policies around immigration are never about fairness but always seem to come back to profit. That same logic—profits over people—governs our asylum system. The companies contracted to run immigration detention—household names such as Serco, Mitie and Mears—are all profiteering and make millions off the backs of vulnerable people. We have seen reports of detainees being abused and being kept in unsanitary conditions, yet those companies continue to get millions of pounds in contracts.
Speaking of protection, let me turn to children, specifically children born here in the UK or who have lived here since they were young, who have called no other place home, yet are still denied British citizenship. I have tabled new clause 37 to address that. These children are not migrants, but they are treated like second-class citizens, often not knowing they are not officially citizens until they apply to university or for a job. Does that sound familiar? They suddenly find themselves locked out of everything through no fault of their own. It is a quiet scandal, just like the Windrush scandal—they have lived here their whole lives, only to be told that they have no right to be here.
We promised “Never again” and said that we would learn lessons, but in 2025 we are charging British-born children £1,214 to register as citizens, when we know the administrative cost is only £372. We are charging those children for something that is their right. Up to 215,000 children are legally entitled to citizenship but they are undocumented because of the exploitative fee. The fee waiver is not working, so we are calling for fairness. At the very least, if a child is entitled to citizenship, they should be able to claim it without being priced out. No child should be punished for where their parents were born or how much money they have.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name.
I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on her maiden speech, but she seems to have joined her colleagues in the bar. I was going to tell her that she had achieved something quite notable: she has been able to force this Government to bring forward this immigration White Paper, as both the main parties try to outdo and triangulate the hon. Members from Reform, who are no longer in their places. May I just say to hon. Members on the Conservative and Labour Benches that they are more or less wasting my time: why would voters go for one of the diet versions when they could have the full-fat version in the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
I have spoken at every stage of this Bill, including four interminable weeks and countless hours on the Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] I wish I could say otherwise. Of course, for the Minister it was a positive experience, but for me it was nothing other than thoroughly frustrating, depressing and dispiriting. I have been appalled at the emerging casual and callous way that the most wretched people in the world are now portrayed and demonised, and I fear what this House now has in store for them. I despair at the lack of empathy and humanity that has been shown to some of the most desperate people in the world. I abhor the perception that essential human rights are considered a hinderance, to be dispensed with in the pursuit of even more cruelty and disregard. I think the House forgets that these are real people fleeing conflict, oppression and unimaginable horror.
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 3, on safe routes, because I believe that is the only way we should deal with those people. What we have done just now is create a monopoly and exclusive rights for the gangs that operate the Channel crossings. There is no other way for asylum seekers to assert their asylum rights. When they have the opportunity to assert those rights, most of them have them granted, which makes a nonsense of the fact that asylum seekers are being termed “illegal immigrants.” Instead of smashing the gangs, the Government are actually giving them new opportunities and making their business model even more lucrative.
I pay tribute to all the agencies and support organisations that helped me with these amendments and the amendments I tabled in Committee. Those groups are now in some sort of legal jeopardy because of some of the clauses in the Bill. Their opportunities to support the most desperate people in the world through advocacy and looking after their rights are now at risk because of some of the measures in the Bill. We are heading towards a particularly dark place in some of the considerations on these issues.
I am impressed by some of the Labour speakers when they talk about immigration and say that we have to be very careful how we handle this debate as we go forward, but I am really feart just now. I listened to what the Prime Minister said this morning and was horrified by some of the language he conjured up, which we thought we had lost decades ago. This is the type of territory that we venture into with very great sensitively, and I am afraid that the Prime Minister lost that this afternoon. I hope that we have the opportunity to press these new clauses and amendments, secure the safe routes and ensure that we do everything we can for asylum seekers.
Jo White
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“People started dying. People were screaming. It is very painful when someone is dying inside the water. The way they die—they cannot breathe...it is very difficult. I never thought I would experience such a thing… It is a harrowing experience I do not want to remember. I was holding on to what remained of the boat and people were screaming. It is something I will not forget.”
This is the witness testimony of Mohammed Omar when he spoke at the Cranston inquiry, which is investigating the UK’s worst small boat disaster. On 27 November 2021, it is believed that 31 people lost their lives. Mohammed said that he was told that 33 people would be aboard the dinghy, but more were added, including children.
Those gang members whose sole focus is on the billions of pounds that their horrific trade generates, who overload boats that are not fit to go into the ocean, who treat human life as having no value, willing to put lives at risk for huge profits must experience the full force of the law. This Bill gives Border Command the powers to pursue, arrest and prosecute those people. Breaking and destroying the gangs is critical to bringing an end to the small boat crossings. Mohammed’s witness evidence underlines how important it is to achieve that.
The Bill not only gives the power and authority to work with our international partners to track down and break up the gangs, with the powers to seize and interrogate mobile phones and laptops to collect data and evidence, but the new amendment will introduce enhanced illegal working checks, putting a stop to those delivery drivers bringing meals or parcels to our doorsteps who cannot speak a word of English, potentially using IDs that have been borrowed or purchased from legitimate employees.
I welcome the raids on the businesses, such as the nail bars, barbers and restaurants employing illegal workers, potentially in slave labour conditions. In January there were 131 raids in my area of the midlands, with 106 arrests. The amendment will mean that those arrested will now face fines of up to £60,000 per worker and prison sentences of up to five years. The French have said that people want to come to the UK because it is all too easy to be swept into the black economy and work illegally. The heavy disincentives of fines and prison sentences have the power to put a brake on the demand for the illegal trafficking of people.
I welcome this Bill. As I said in February,
“crack on with the job, give us a running commentary of every success, publicise the return flights and the jailing of criminals, clear up the Conservatives’ mess, secure our borders, close down the use of hotels and stop the small boats.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 124.]
Today is the next step forward.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 14. This Government came into power on the promise to “smash the gangs” and cut immigration numbers—what an empty, cynical slogan that turned out to be. The exact opposite happened: the gangs were emboldened and the Government lost control of illegal immigration, which is up 31% since the election and 35% in this year.
After the failure to smash the gangs and the poor showing at the recent elections, the Government’s response is another gimmick: the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. It is hollow, its five core principles are a word salad of empty phrases and it is a rehash of old ideas and contradictions. It lacks a deterrent. In fact, the biggest mistake that this Prime Minister has made, in a strong field of contenders, was cancelling the Rwanda scheme. Even the National Crime Agency described that as a deterrent, and it was already starting to work; we saw those coming in by dinghy from France starting to head to Ireland and other countries. Without Rwanda or another third country, there is no way to remove any illegal immigrants who destroy their documents as they come to this country.
As a result of cancelling that deterrent, we have seen illegal migration soar. Some of the levels of illegal immigration will come down, but that will be as a result of what the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), did with his restrictions to stop dependants entering the country and the bilateral deals he made, such as the one with Albania to deport criminals. This Government say that they will now create a new legal framework for immigration judges to prevent illegal migrants and foreign criminals avoiding deportation by exploiting article 8 of the ECHR. That will never happen under the human rights lawyer who leads the Labour party, or a Labour party that champions the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.
The reality is that until this Government get ahead of the curve, get a spine, take the UK out of the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act—a law that Labour introduced to cement the ECHR in British law—reinstate the Rwanda scheme and radically clamp down on housing and benefits, I am afraid that immigrants will continue to come to the UK. The British people expect security and prosperity, not platitudes and broken promises. We in this House must act accordingly and vote in favour of new clause 14, which would disapply the Human Rights Act.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Vulnerable people are dying in the channel and in our asylum system in record, horrifying numbers. Today, yet another person tragically died trying to reach our shores. The exact figures are murky, but from what we know, last year was the deadliest year ever for people seeking asylum in the UK. The UN estimates that 82 people, including at least 14 children, lost their lives in the channel, but French frontline charities believe the fatality rate to be significantly higher. Meanwhile, freedom of information requests reveal that 51 people died in asylum accommodation, and among them were a 15-year-old boy and two babies.
People are drowning while trying to reach safety. Once they arrive, they are dying by suicide, from infectious diseases and from unknown causes in poverty, in low-quality accommodation or on the streets, like the teenage victim of modern slavery who took his own life while terrified of deportation, the father of one who died of diphtheria after being held in a Government processing centre, or the seven-year-old girl who was crushed to death on an overcrowded boat. In several cases of deaths in asylum accommodation, there have been alleged lapses of safeguarding codes. These deaths are utterly unacceptable and often preventable, yet the Home Office keeps no official record. As such, we do not know how many lives are being lost.
The Government rightly want to reduce deaths in the channel, and the starting point must be to know the numbers. My new clause 1, which is supported by 24 MPs, is a call for truth and transparency. It would mandate that the Home Office records and reports statistics and information on the deaths of people in our asylum system who are meant to be in its care and people at our borders. It would provide opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, because no matter where they come from or how they got here, people deserve dignity. We must not allow them to die in silence, ignored and uncared for, so I urge the Government to act. We need a new approach to refugees and asylum. We need to stand up to Conservative Members scapegoating desperate people for the problems that our communities are experiencing after 14 years of Conservative austerity, instead of parroting them.
Sir Christopher Chope
May I speak briefly to new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He is unfortunately not able to present this argument himself, because he is attending a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and he asked if I would speak briefly in support of his new clause. I hope that I can encourage the Minister to expand a bit on whether the Government think that this is rather a good way of ensuring that the worst abuses in the courts system are avoided.
Essentially, my right hon. Friend’s new clause would give precedence to the non-refoulement arrangements in the refugee convention and in the UN convention against torture, but it would not allow the European convention on human rights and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond those provisions. That is very important, because fundamental to English law is the principle of equity. If people come here with clean hands and seek justice and our support, we should be keen to encourage that, but if people come here and abuse our hospitality or have already committed offences, we should get rid of them quickly. That is not very easy at the moment, because of how the courts interpret the European convention on human rights.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to new clause 14. The problem I have with it is that it does not go far enough. It talks about getting rid of or disapplying the Human Rights Act, but of only disapplying the interim arrangements of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to go much further than that, and I am slightly reluctant to be enthusiastic about the new clause.
One provision that I am very enthusiastic about, and which I am disappointed that the official Opposition will not call a Division on, is new clause 15. The shadow Home Secretary’s explanatory statement says:
“This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with”—
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an issue of democracy here? Successive Governments and Ministers have said that they want to toughen up the regime, but that is undermined by activist judges. That is a further reason to support the new clauses that he mentions.
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree with my right hon. Friend. If one wants a current example, there was a headline in The Daily Telegraph on 1 May that read, “Migrant spared prison after punching female officer”. [Interruption.] This was a fact—it was a court case in Poole in Dorset, not far from my constituency. A small-boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers was spared jail. That is completely laughable, and on that I have the support of David Sidwick, Dorset’s excellent police and crime commissioner, who is trying to take this issue further. When people who have come here seeking our help and assistance abuse the system, and we indulge their presence, that brings the whole system into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will get much tougher on this issue, but sadly, the Bill seems to weaken the offence regime under immigration law, rather than strengthening it, as we should.
Phil Brickell
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, because for far too long, criminal smuggling gangs have operated with virtual impunity, ruthlessly exploiting men, women and children and putting their lives at risk for profit. That is why I am encouraged to see a Government being honest with me and my constituents. No more gimmicks. No more wasting £700 million on unworkable and fantastical Rwanda schemes. They are just giving our law enforcement bodies the tools and resourcing that they need to intervene earlier and act faster.
The Bill contains new offences targeting those who supply or handle boat parts used in crossings, with up to 14 years behind bars for those found guilty. It allows for the seizing of electronic devices, such as phones and laptops, to help gather evidence and disrupt operations, and creates a new interim serious crime prevention order, which allows immediate restrictions on travel, communications and finances, so that we can stop criminals in their tracks before they escalate their activity. I am particularly pleased about the £150 million going into the new Border Security Command, and further National Crime Agency officers working across Europe—including, importantly, through Europol. It is not rocket science, but the National Crime Agency has said that these measures will give it what it needs to disrupt smuggling networks and dismantle their business model.
Just as importantly, the Bill will put a stop to the Conservative party’s attempts to make us turn our back on the world. The fantastic trade deals that we concluded just last week with India and the US are vital recognition that putting Britain back on the global stage and tackling the gangs that are smuggling people into our country can go hand in hand. Crime does not respect borders, so it is quite right that we are prioritising strong international partners. I particularly welcome the new joint action plan with Germany and, through the Calais Group and the G7, the alignment of efforts across Europe to shut down smuggling groups, seize key equipment and bring gang leaders to justice.
New clauses 6 and 7 set reasonable timelines for first-tier tribunal appeal determinations. Those are important clarifications, given the damage done to trust in our immigration system by interminable proceedings and delays. Those new clauses will cut the asylum backlog and drastically save money for taxpayers. New clause 8 will, I hope, improve our approach to persons convicted of serious sexual offences, which my constituents have grave concerns about. It is right that foreign nationals who commit sex offences should not be able to claim refugee status in the UK.
The UK is a welcoming and open nation, and we need a sensible, fair and caring immigration system to support our key industries. I am pleased that the Government are making moves towards that, and I will be pleased to support the Bill tonight.
Nick Timothy
I want to go through the differences between what the Government told the newspapers, and the reality of this Bill and the amendments that have been tabled. Ministers said that they would change indefinite leave to remain, but the White Paper proposal today is weak, and the Home Secretary admitted that it may not apply to immigrants who are already here. It is therefore no wonder that the Government refuse to support new clause 11, which would do the job for them.
The visa crackdown on the nationalities blamed for asylum costs—Pakistanis, Nigerians and Sri Lankans, we were told—and the promise to kick out all foreign criminals were both headlines, but no credible policy on those issues was presented to us today. The Government promised action against the tens of thousands of people, or maybe more, who are working illegally for delivery companies as a result of abusing substitution clauses. It is welcome that substitution clauses are being added to sections 15 to 24 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, but what will be the operational reality? There are perhaps 1 million illegal immigrants in Britain, but only 366 fines were imposed for illegal working in the last quarter of last year. At least 100,000 people are trading identities online to work as substitutes.
Before the local elections, the headlines said, “Foreign sex offenders will be banned from claiming asylum in the UK”. I suppose that is what Government new clause 8 does, but what use is that new clause if Ministers do not give themselves legal powers to deport foreign sex offenders? The Government are whipping their MPs to vote against new clause 14, which disapplies the Human Rights Act and interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
I am afraid that today is just another stage in the cycle of political deceit. I should say that in the past, my party has been as culpable as the Labour party—we must be honest about that. Immigration policy must be about not just who comes here, but who we decide must leave. People who are here on time-limited visas must be told to go; people who refuse to accept our culture and way of life must leave; and people who have broken the law, and those who take out more than they put in must be thrown out. We will need to ensure vast numbers of removals and deportations in the years ahead, and we need to remove the legal impediments in domestic law, and in international conventions drafted in another age, that stop us securing the border and saving our country.
We must also be tough about who we allow to come here. We cannot afford to import more of the world’s hatreds, nor to allow foreign conflicts to be fought out on our streets. We must accept that not every migrant is the same, and not every culture is equal; one in 50 Albanians in Britain is in jail, one in three Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage adults is economically inactive, and 72% of Somalis live in social housing. We are a million miles away from doing what is necessary, and despite the rhetoric, this Bill takes us even further backwards. Look past the words, and this country will see what this Government are doing.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of the Bill and the Government’s new clauses, as this issue matters deeply. When we talk about immigration and border control, we are not just talking about policies made in Westminster, but about real-life consequences for those seeking refuge. This Bill is a major step forward in building an immigration system that is both firm and fair, both robust and compassionate. Since the general election, this Government have already taken bold action. Over 24,000 people with no legal right to remain have been processed—the most in years. In just one month, enforcement teams raided over 800 businesses, arresting more than 600 people for allowing illegal working practices—a 73% increase on the same period last year.
However, this is not just about numbers; it is about confronting a criminal underworld that preys on human suffering. People-smuggling gangs are profiting from desperation. They are putting lives at risk in the channel and undermining the values of fairness and order that we all believe in. With this Bill, and with new clauses 6 to 8, we can now go even further. We are introducing real criminal penalties for those who supply boat parts—up to 14 years in prison. We are making it a crime to endanger life at sea during illegal crossings, modernising how we process asylum claims by using artificial intelligence to speed up decisions, banning sex offenders from ever claiming refugee status in this country, and putting tough restrictions on bogus immigration lawyers.
Let me be clear: being tough does not mean being cruel. True compassion means creating a system that works for everyone. That includes the people who are coming here, because there is nothing humane about placing vulnerable people from around the world in the most deprived communities in the country, with poor housing, overstretched services, and no opportunity to rebuild their lives.
In Leigh, we have seen that at first hand. This does not relate to the Bill, but I need to mention it: Serco has acquired many properties in my constituency and in the Greater Manchester area generally. Our town has lost its industry. We have fewer job opportunities and a housing crisis of our own, and yet we are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden simply because our homes are cheaper. That is not compassion; it is neglect. People are being housed in failing conditions and no one benefits—not the asylum seekers and not our local residents.
This Government are delivering real results—results that we are seeing for the first time. This is what we need to see. We need to see a fairer system that protects lives, upholds the law and restores order without losing sight of basic human dignity.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I should start by mentioning that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which would allow asylum seekers the right to work after three months of waiting for a decision. I back this measure for three key reasons: common sense, economic rationale and human dignity. In my constituency, I work closely with a charity called Big Leaf, an outstanding organisation that supports more than 200 displaced young people. Through it, I met Mohi—a young woman who, on arriving in the UK, lived in a hotel for 20 consecutive months. Her husband had nursing experience, and Mohi herself dreamed of becoming a nurse. She told me, “I want to give back to the country that has given me safety. We are here to be useful. We don’t want to rely on benefits. We just want a normal life.” Big Leaf, her peers, her mentors, her colleagues and her employers all recognised what Mohi could become. Everyone saw her potential, except the system. Today she works as a healthcare assistant, and this September she is excited about beginning training at the University of Surrey to become a nurse.
Luke Taylor
My hon. Friend has given three fantastic reasons that my hon. Friend has given for lifting the ban, but such a move is also popular with the public: 80% of people polled backed the right for asylum seekers to work. Moreover, 45% of asylum seekers would be classified as critical workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are, in fact, four fantastic reasons why the Government should lift the ban?
Zöe Franklin
I absolutely agree. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to vote for new 21 for all four reasons that, between us, my hon. Friend and I have stated.
Tom Hayes
So late in the day, with so much said, I am going to take a direction that differs from that taken by some of my colleagues. I want to talk about what border security means for us as a country.
The playwright James Graham says that our country is only the story that we tell about ourselves. With the Conservatives, we were told a story of hopelessness, despair and scapegoating. People were left to believe that we should be frightened by the challenges we face, frightened by our inability to meet them, and frightened by the setbacks that we face and what they say about who we are and where we are going. That is why it is so important for this Labour Government to be correcting that narrative. Getting a grip on our borders, closing asylum hotels, bringing the asylum bill down: those are the basics that people expect. They are what make people feel confident, not frightened—secure, not susceptible to those on the Opposition Benches who would peddle empty promises and, ultimately, let the British people down.
Tom Hayes
No.
For me, border security sits alongside fixing potholes, tackling graffiti and fly-tipping, and stopping e-scooter and e-bike speeding. It is obviously more complicated—for one thing, it involves a great deal of international negotiation—but border security is security. It is vital for people’s safety and pride. It underpins so much. If people cannot rely on the basics, they cannot begin to enjoy everything else that life has to offer. If people cannot see pledges being kept, promises being delivered and things being improved where they live, they will not just lose trust; they will succumb to hopelessness. We must not allow the spirit of our people to break. We must get the basics right, and with the Bill we will do that.
We will secure our borders with this Bill and these amendments. We will have new powers on seizing electronic devices, a new law to protect life at sea, a new statutory border security command, tougher action on foreign national sex offenders, and the ending of asylum hotels that cost eye-watering sums. It is in our national interest to get our borders back under control against criminal smuggler gangs.
In order to understand the politics of where we are, I have been looking back at old debates, and Conservative Members may enjoy hearing what I am about to say. With our policies and politics on border security, as with much else, I feel that we could benefit from listening to a question that was put by the first Earl of Stockton in his maiden speech in the other place in 1985. He said:
“Should we just slowly and majestically sink…like a great ship—or shall we make a new determined and united effort… Let us do the latter and then historians of the future will not describe…the decline and fall of Britain but…the beginning of a new and glorious renaissance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 254.]
As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I want to work with all in this place who share the former Conservative Prime Minister’s moderation and determination to have a united effort to bring about a better Britain. That involves fixing the basics, such as border security. After all, it would be an absurdity for small boats to sink a bigger ship.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The trafficking gangs that profit from the most vulnerable refugees do not care if the people on those boats live or die. It is obvious that we all want to see the end of this horrendous crime, but those who travel are not bad people; they are desperate. It is understandable that communities who see groups of mainly young men being economically inactive will be frustrated and angry, but asylum seekers are not responsible for people not getting a doctor’s appointment—it is the people who traffic them.
When I was the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, I backed the Lift the Ban coalition and met an inspiring young man from Cameroon who had arrived here legitimately on a student visa. While he was here, his village was torched and his uncle killed. He could not return home, so he claimed asylum from where he was in the midlands. He was immediately relocated to a hotel in Bournemouth and refused the ability to work—something that he had done legitimately right up to that point. Letting him work would allow him to contribute to our community, instead of being a great drain on it.
I will speak to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 24 and 33, which relate to our work with international partners. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently learned more about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 99 covers the prohibition of the transport of slaves, but it does not cover human trafficking. Around the world, our international partnerships are being hamstrung as a result, and I urge the Minister to look at how we could use Interpol as a route towards developing UNCLOS further.
Finally, I will speak against new clause 16, which would increase the minimum income for a spousal visa to £38,000. This would mean that the average police officer, research scientist or nurse outside London—in places such as Mid Dorset and North Poole—would not be able to get a visa for their spouse. I was pleased that the Government paused the proposal and left the threshold at £29,000, as I am concerned that we could see a brain drain among many British professionals who choose to leave the UK for their partners’ homes countries, where they will be welcome.
I want to speak about the armed forces personnel I have met both in the constituency and through the AFPS, particularly those coming from Commonwealth countries. They have answered our call to fight for our country, but they are forced to leave their spouses behind, as the lower threshold provided for them only applies after an extended period of service. Pushing that threshold up to £38,000 would take reunification out of their reach, too. The current threshold ensures that families who can support themselves can stay together, and I urge the Government to leave it where it is.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We can all agree that immigration must be managed. The public rightly expect a fair, firm and functional system, but control cannot come at the cost of compassion, so let me be clear: immigrants cannot be viewed through the lens of fear, and parliamentarians on all sides must choose their words carefully. We are responsible for ensuring that our rhetoric does not incite attacks, fear and division, or even lead to violence. It is not enough to say that we denounce hate; we must also refrain from language that fuels it. Terms like “island of strangers” simply do not help.
Too often, we hear suggestions—either explicitly or implicitly—that immigrants are to blame for everything that is wrong in our country. Let us be honest with the public: it is not immigrants who have polluted our rivers or our seas with sewage; it is not immigrants who set sky-high rail fares while slashing routes; it is not immigrants who have hollowed out our NHS, cut GP services or closed libraries; and it is not immigrants who have overseen 14 years of economic stagnation, rising rents and growing inequality.
There are some aspects of this Bill that I can support—abolishing the ridiculous Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 is one—but there are more shortcomings, especially in relation to the lack of help for victims of human trafficking, which is why I rise to support some of the amendments. I call on Members across the House to support new clause 27, which would ensure that proper age assessments are conducted by trained and independent social workers, and not through rushed visual judgments or flawed and impersonal scientific tests.
Furthermore, in the shadow of our immigration debate, children are being exploited. They are the victims of a modern slave trade run by smugglers and traffickers who prey on desperation. Children are coerced into roles that put their lives and the lives of others at risk. These are not isolated cases. Over 4,000 unaccompanied children claimed asylum in the UK last year alone. The system must recognise the unique vulnerability of children and treat them as such, not as suspects and not as statistics, but as they are: children. Although the Government’s intention to address the asylum appeals backlog is laudable, proposals such as new clause 6 and 7 to impose arbitrary deadlines of 24 weeks, without sufficient resources or legal safeguards, are not the answer. Justice rushed is justice denied.
Finally, by taking on the narrative of those on the right wing, by mimicking their talking points and rhetoric, we are not neutralising the threat of extremism, but feeding it. We will only push Reform UK and others even further to the right, emboldening them to say things that we have made appear acceptable. I ask the Government: when will they stand their ground, choose principles over polling and remember that leadership means bringing people together, not chasing after the loudest voices in the room? Let us reject the politics of scapegoating, and lead with integrity, facts and humanity. Our country deserves nothing less.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I would like to focus on new clause 21. We can all see that the asylum system is broken and expensive, and the horror of people arriving in a desperate state on small boats is causing division and anger across our country. However, turning to a populist party that throws out soundbites that appeal to many but fall apart at the first hint of real scrutiny is not the answer.
How do we address this problem? First, we need to dial down the volume and the divisiveness in this debate, and to talk about these people as humans, not numbers. We need to open up safe and legal routes for people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and conflict. We need to assess their asylum claims quickly and efficiently, and then help them into the workforce so they can start earning money, supporting themselves, contributing to the economy and, just as importantly, integrating properly into our society.
The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said on Radio 4 this weekend that his party’s chairman, the child of immigrants from Sri Lanka, was intensely patriotic, saying:
“The whole point of coming to a country is that you adopt it”.
That is exactly what asylum seekers will do when given refuge by a country that offers them safety. We have seen it since time began. Indeed, many in this House are the children of immigrants who have given back enthusiastically to the country that welcomed them.
The asylum backlog stood at 91,000 at the end of 2024. While they wait, asylum seekers are trapped in limbo, unable to work or rebuild their lives and forced to depend on Government funds. This benefits no one. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 21 would lift the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment, which would help to manage the cost of asylum, benefit the UK economy and help asylum seekers to integrate.
Evidence from the Refugee Council shows that, in the medium to long term, refugees in the UK make a net positive fiscal contribution. Initially, they rely more on public services, but within five to 10 years their tax contributions exceed their cost to the state. After five years, 60% to 70% are employed, approaching the national average for employment rates. A study by the Centre for Entrepreneurs shows that one in seven UK companies is founded by a migrant: 17% of non-UK nationals have launched businesses compared with just 10% of UK-born individuals.
The reality is that we have an ageing population, with more people than ever aged over 85 who depend on services. We have fewer people paying tax, working and providing services, and more who have greater needs, particularly in health and care. The chief operations officer of CareYourWay franchising told me:
“We are both baffled and deeply concerned by the government’s decision to revoke the visa route for social care workers. It is harrowing to witness such a critical sector continuously overlooked… This change will, without doubt, have a tangible and far-reaching impact… For many, this decision will not only reduce capacity—it may very well close doors.”
The Liberal Democrats are pushing for more safe and legal routes for refugees, which we know will be crucial to help stop these dangerous channel crossings—
Iqbal Mohamed
The UK immigration system is in shambles. That is no secret after the debacle of the last Government, with the proposed Rwanda scheme, the controversial refugee barges, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to stop boat crossings, and the hostile environment, which made immigration enforcement the responsibility of nurses, doctors, teachers and public service workers. I think we all agree that any step towards fixing this mess is a step in the right direction, and the Bill deserves credit for repealing certain measures proposed by the previous Government. However, it needs to go further and it still has substantial issues: worryingly, it criminalises vulnerable families fleeing hardship and it fails to adequately protect victims of trafficking.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have no more speakers, so we will go straight to the Minister. Forgive me, I thought we had another person bobbing, but they no longer seem to be in the Chamber. Minister Eagle, you get the lucky extra few minutes for the winding-up.
Dame Angela Eagle
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise after what has been a very full debate, with people having to fit in quite complex points in short amounts of time. I congratulate everybody on the points they made. I will try, as much as possible, to deal with some of them in the time I have left.
I thank all those on the Labour Benches who made contributions: my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt).
Liberal Democrat Members concentrated on safe and legal routes, and the ability to work. I was worried that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) had had such a difficult time in Committee. I thought we were having quite a reasonable time, but he was extremely downbeat about it. I must try more on another occasion.
I welcome the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), which we all listened to in traditional silence. I congratulate her on it, welcome her to the House and wonder if Reform is practising the principle of one in, one out—or perhaps one out, one in. It is a pleasure to welcome her to the House.
The shadow Home Secretary produced a flurry of amendments and new clauses demanding that we do a whole range of things that not only did he not do when he had the chance as a Home Office Minister, but his party did not do when they had the chance over 14 years. I have to keep saying this, but we inherited a system in the most incredibly difficult mess, with huge backlogs. He says we have made it worse, but by beginning to process claims, that by definition creates a backlog of those who have been refused. By trying to get the system working again, we get a backlog of appeals, because people who are refused asylum generally appeal, and the backlog—as he knows from his time in the Home Office—therefore reappears in the appeals system. That is why we have the new clauses to attempt to get a timeline for dealing with those cases.
I will concentrate on some of the things that I know there will be votes on tonight. First, I will deal with safe and legal routes and new clause 3. Our approach is to resettle refugees identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK. Alongside that, we have bespoke routes to sanctuary for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. It is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. Part of the difficulty we have at the moment is the legacy we received from the Conservatives of a huge quadrupling of net migration and the issues with having to assimilate all those people in the huge, unplanned way in which they delivered that.
New clause 37 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). We recognise her campaigning on this issue over the past five years. We also recognise that there has been an unfair burden for some families with rights to citizenship under the system as it is. I can confirm that the work referenced on page 76 of the White Paper—it is right at the end—will look at tackling the financial barriers that she highlighted in her speech. I urge her to work with us on how we move forward and to not press her new clause.
The Opposition tabled new clause 14. Let me be clear that this Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European convention on human rights, and it is worth noting that many of the legal obligations provided for in the European convention are also found in other international agreements to which the UK is a party.
Dame Angela Eagle
Very quickly, because I have a lot of points and not much time.
Steve Barclay
The Minister has just set out once again, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, her steadfast commitment to the ECHR. Does she not accept that that means that the legislation is not watertight and that those who have committed serious criminality will continue to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, because of the ECHR?
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 8 will deny refugee status to those who commit sexual offences. We also have the work being announced on narrowing article 8, which will allow Parliament to give more direction to judges about how the rules ought to be interpreted. The immigration rules reflect the requirements of the ECHR generally, including the qualified nature of article 8, setting requirements that properly balance the individual right to respect for family and private life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the UK by controlling immigration.
Chris Philp
The Minister mentioned the provision to prevent certain sex offenders from claiming asylum. While that is a welcome step, what will happen in practice is that the sex offender will simply make a claim under article 3 of the ECHR instead. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases like that, and that is precisely why we need to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. Otherwise, there will just be a huge loophole, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) pointed out.
Dame Angela Eagle
If we disapplied the Human Rights Act, people would just go to the ECHR anyway, and a lot of these cases would end up in Strasbourg, which would take even longer. Disapplying the Human Rights Act would also mean that other countries that we have to work and collaborate with to deal with cross-border people smuggling would not work with us. The Conservatives had many huge rows with people and went around the world making it look as though they did not believe in the rule of law. This Government do believe in the rule of law and we will carry on upholding the rule of law; we regard that as an important part of the value system we have in this country.
On new clause 18 and the cap on non-visitor visas, as always the Conservatives talk a good talk now that they are safely in opposition, having not delivered when they were in government. They promised time after time to reduce net migration down to the tens of thousands—they did it in their manifestos and in the many different manifestations of Conservative Governments that we saw plough through the House, especially in the past four years—and what did they do? They quadrupled net migration. We do not need a cap; we need to get migration down, fundamentally lower than it is now, to make the system fair and effective. In order to do that, we have published a White Paper today and introduced further measures in this Bill. We will come back to this issue to ensure that we can deliver—unlike the Conservative party.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank the Minister for her mention of my new clause and her commitment to ending the financial burden on young children and their families who have a right to citizenship. What further work will be done to consult campaigns such as Citizens UK, Lambeth Citizens and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that have been working on this issue? I know that the White Paper covers a range of issues, but I want to understand what consultation will be done with those organisations to ensure that we get to where we need to be: a situation where children are not priced out of citizenship.
Dame Angela Eagle
The Minister for Citizenship and Migration, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), has just made it clear to me from the Front Bench that she is very happy to consult and meet all those groups. We want people to contribute to the consultation so that we get this right. I hope that in the light of that, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill will not press new clause 37.
I want to deal with the right to work in the brief time I have left, because those on the Lib Dem Benches talked about that in particular. It is an issue of balance: we know at the moment that, if someone’s asylum claim is delayed for 12 months, they have the right to work in particular shortage areas. Our way of dealing with this is to get the system to work more quickly, so that we do not have people languishing for many years in limbo. That is what we are aiming to do.
We are worried that if the right to work came in after three months, it would be too much of a pull factor and get around some of the issues with work visas. We have to have a system that people apply to properly, rather than one that they can get around by coming in by irregular routes. That is the issue. I appreciate what Lib Dem Members are trying to achieve; we have a slight difference of approach on that, but clearly we will carry on having these debates.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It has been brought to my attention that not all the Division bells are working. We are trying to rectify that as soon as possible. I urge colleagues to remain close to the Chamber and the estate, and to keep their eyes on the annunciators.
New Clause 21
Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”—(Lisa Smart.)
This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill restores order to an asylum system that was left in chaos by the Conservatives. It puts an end to the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that they bequeathed us. It repeals in full the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and it repeals most of the unworkable Illegal Migration Act 2023, which trapped asylum seekers in limbo as asylum backlogs soared and the taxpayer picked up a spiralling bill.
This Government are clearing up the mess that the Conservative party left us, and the Bill before the House will help us to succeed. It will assist in securing our borders by dealing with the soaring backlogs. It gives counter-terror style powers to law enforcement agencies, equipping them to go after the people-smuggling gangs that are making millions of pounds out of exploiting people’s misery. The Bill introduces new powers to seize electronic devices and disrupt the activities of people smugglers; new offences against gangs selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel; new powers on serious crime prevention orders to target individuals involved in organised immigration crime; a new law to protect lives at sea by making it an offence to endanger another life during small boat crossings; a new statutory footing for the Border Security Commander; and new and improved data sharing between Government agencies, such as HMRC and DVLA, and law enforcement to detect organised immigration crime.
The Bill introduces a statutory timeline for appeals decisions and a major modernisation of the powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner. It ensures that those who commit certain sexual offences will be denied protection under the refugee convention, and contains a long-overdue extension of the right-to-work checks for casual and temporary workers in the gig economy, so why on earth is the Conservative party going to vote against it tonight?
People smuggling is a complex and multifaceted problem, and there are no quick or easy solutions to prevent it. Anyone who claims that there are easy answers is a snake oil salesman, but it is possible to identify, disrupt and dismantle the criminal gangs and strengthen the security of our borders through international diplomacy and operational co-operation. This Bill will help us do just that, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Home Secretary, who has a minute or two.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this unexpected opportunity. The reason the Opposition will vote against the Bill is that it does nothing to restore control of our country’s borders. It repeals the legislative basis for a removals deterrent, which is needed to stop people crossing the English channel. The fact that the Labour Government cancelled that deterrent before it started is why illegal crossings have gone up by 29% since the last election, and why this year has been the worst in history for illegal crossings of the English channel. This Bill weakens border controls, and it removes the powers that the Government could otherwise exercise to control our borders. They are failing, and this Bill will do nothing to restore control of our borders.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I am glad to be able to speak in the Adjournment today about an issue of painful neglect that affects 80 British families each year, yet remains largely hidden from public and parliamentary view. We have all said goodbye to a loved one at an airport, wishing them well for their holiday, or their time abroad for work or study. If any of us was to receive a phone call saying that our loved one had been murdered when they were in the UK, that phone call would be devastating enough, but to receive that phone call when a loved one is thousands of miles away—murdered across an ocean, in a country that speaks another language—is a whole different world of pain and confusion.
Every year, British citizens are killed in acts of violence abroad. In many cases, their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for the loss of a loved one, all while faced with the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system. They do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government—all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.
Tonight, I want to be a voice for those families, through the Murdered Abroad campaign, a group of bereaved relatives who have turned their grief into a powerful call for change. They are not asking for special treatment—in fact, they want the complete opposite. They are asking for fairness and compassion, and the kind of structured, statutory support that families receive when tragedy strikes on British soil.
In January this year, I met a family in Maidenhead, who discussed their story of their son’s murder in America in 2009. They managed to contact the consulate, but the time difference was tricky, and there was not much help for the family with communicating. After many calls, they realised they were not really getting anywhere, so they had to take matters into their own hands, even going so far as to arrange the repatriation of their son’s body in the absence of support from their Government.
When a British citizen is murdered abroad, their family is plunged not only into grief and shock, but into a crisis made worse by the overwhelming burden of having to navigate unfamiliar systems with a lack of support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on a subject that is very important to many. Between 2010 and 2015, more than 250 British nationals were murdered abroad, in Pakistan, Tunisia, France and the United States, which he mentioned. We often see horror stories online—cases in which an individual has been found but not yet identified. Does he agree that, in the case of British nationals, there is more that the Foreign Office could do to ensure that all efforts are made to alert the family before any news is released to the media? Sometimes the media need to be sensitive.
Mr Reynolds
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to a number of families across the country who say that they found out via social media or via the press that their son or parent had been murdered. That is not good enough—it is not acceptable.
I want to start with language barriers, which are among the first and most distressing problems that families face. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office offers families a list of translators, but those lists often come without crucial context, such as information about whether the translators are legally certified, whether they are experienced with criminal or judicial terminology, whether they are available on short notice, and how much they cost. In a moment of extreme vulnerability, families are forced into a commercial marketplace with no quality control and no guidance. Many simply cannot afford translation fees, which can run into thousands of pounds, yet they are handed copies of important documents—autopsy reports, court transcripts, police records, judgments—in a language they do not speak. That is an active barrier to justice. Let us consider for a moment what that means in practice: a grieving mother receiving her child’s post-mortem report, unable to understand a word of it, or a widower left alone to guess at the meaning of complex judgment findings, not even sure whether justice has been served or denied, because they cannot read the verdict.
Then we must confront the issue of distance. In many cases, trials take place thousands of miles away. Families may be notified of court proceedings at short notice and are often given no logistical or financial support to attend. The cost of flights, accommodation, meals and unpaid leave from work quickly adds up. For many, it becomes an impossible choice: deplete their savings to try to attend, or stay at home and risk missing their one chance to see justice carried out, to hear what happened or to look the accused in the eye. The Government do not provide any funding for families to attend foreign trials, even when the court’s findings could have a direct impact on a coroner’s inquest here in the UK. This is not about luxury; it is about basic fairness. No bereaved family should be priced out of justice because a killing happened beyond our borders.
Add to that the challenges of cultural and legal complexities, and it is easy to see why families feel so lost. Legal systems vary from country to country. Some are adversarial like ours; others are not. Some permit victims’ families to play an active role; others do not. The length of proceedings, the level of evidence required and the appeal process all differ, yet families are given little to no explanation by the Government. They are often told to find a lawyer abroad, but the list provided comes with little guidance. There is no indication whether those lawyers speak English, specialise in murder, understand victim support or are familiar with working alongside British families. All the while, in the UK, the families are left with no legal advice from someone who specialises in overseas homicide cases.
Time and again, however, the most frustrating aspect is communication failures, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. Families describe being left in the dark about the most basic details of the case. Trial dates come and go without notice. Hearings are adjourned with no explanation. Key developments, such as the release of a suspect or even a final verdict, are learned of through the media, social media or word of mouth, rather than through official channels. That is unacceptable. Families are not asking for the world; they are asking for regular updates, clear communication and transparency, so that they are not blindsided by crucial developments in the pursuit of justice for their loved one.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Some aspects of the cases that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing are sadly very similar to those in the case of Rob Spray, from my Cannock Chase constituency, who died suddenly in Bulgaria in 2019. Rob’s case is about to be heard at inquest, so I will not comment on the legal aspects, but I can say that his family were left in the dark by the Bulgarian authorities and, sadly, by the Foreign Office. They had very little guidance, even on how to bring Rob’s body back to the UK, and they had to resort to a translation app to decipher Rob’s autopsy after they were told that they would have to wait six months for an official translation. That all deepened their grief and frustration at the worst possible time. The worst part of all is that Rob’s mom sadly passed away not knowing what happened to her son.
I will do everything I can to help Rob’s family get the answers that they have waited so long to get, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to campaign on this. Does he agree that we need to make sure that bereaved families like the Sprays get the full support of the British Government, so that they can get the closure that they need and deserve?
Mr Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for talking about Rob and his family. It is really important that the Government step up and support families, where they need it. Families need consistent advice, and to know that they have someone to turn to.
That brings me on nicely to my next point, which is about the consistency of support for families through consular services. Some describe consular services overseas as being provided by really positive, empathetic individuals who go out of their way to help, but far too many tell me about being passed from person to person, receiving contradictory advice, having emails ignored and being made to feel more like a burden than a bereaved family in need of care. The inconsistency is one of the crucial failings, because there is no statutory duty on the Government to provide a minimum standard of support to families in such circumstances. The level of help depends on the consulate involved, which official picks up the phone, and which country the incident occurs in. It is a passport lottery.
I want to mention some real people and highlight how they feel they have been failed. Eve Henderson’s husband Roderick was killed in France in 1997. She encountered immediate language barriers and a completely different judicial process that no one explained to her and no one helped her navigate.
Brian Chandler’s grandson Liam was killed in Greece in 2006. He was pushed from a fourth-floor balcony by his own father, a British national. The perpetrator admitted what he had done, yet the Greek court found him not guilty because of a psychiatric episode. For Liam’s family, the experience of sitting through the trial in a foreign language and trying to understand the complex legal arguments with no help was traumatic and bewildering. The fact that the case involved a British perpetrator makes it all the more difficult to understand why British authorities provided no support.
Brenda’s brother Howard was killed in Australia in 1999. She faced an enormous barrier of distance. Attending the trial meant significant cost, time off work and personal sacrifice. No financial assistance or practical help was offered. She had to choose between justice and affordability—an impossible choice that no grieving family should ever have to make.
Alyssa’s sister Vanessa was killed in Thailand in 2004. Alyssa faced a perfect storm of challenges: the language barrier, cultural differences, geographical distance and an unfamiliar legal system. She had no understanding of how Thai courts operated and no guidance on how to follow proceedings, and it quickly became a nightmare. Those are not isolated incidents; they are emblematic of a broken and inconsistent system.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Dr Ding Col Dau Ding was raised and educated in North Norfolk and became a neurosurgeon before travelling to South Sudan to practise medicine and save lives. In 2017, he was found dead in his family’s flat, and they believe that he was murdered. The official Government narrative is that he died by suicide or misadventure, but there is significant evidence to dispute that. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extra challenge for families whose loved ones are murdered abroad when they also have to challenge the authorities, and that the Foreign Office should support them in their fight for justice?
Mr Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is incredibly important that the authorities provide that extra support.
One thing that families have told me makes a real difference is the peer support that they can get from other families who have walked the path, and who can offer reassurance, practical advice and emotional understanding that no bureaucrat or leaflet ever could. These support networks, like Murdered Abroad, are under-resourced and often disconnected from formal consular processes. They are run by volunteers—by the bereaved themselves—who have taken on this work not because they are asked to, but because nobody else would. It is time we supported them and recognised their work, because that is what we are here to do. We need a clear, comprehensive statutory framework of support for families of British citizens murdered abroad. I am calling on the Government to commit to eight key reforms. First, there needs to be a statutory duty to provide consistent and timely communication to bereaved families. Every family should have a named point of contact and regular updates, not a revolving door of anonymous officials and faceless email inboxes. Secondly, key documents must be translated into English. No family should be forced to hire their own translator through crowdfunding or use up all their savings just to understand how their loved one died.
Thirdly, there needs to be accessible guidance on the foreign country’s judicial process, including information about how criminal investigations work, trial expectations, timelines and victim rights. This information should be publicly accessible. Fourthly, there must be a list of verified legal support that makes it clear what kind of cases the legal experts handle and whether they speak English. Fifthly, we need improved co-operation between British and foreign authorities as well as police liaison and information sharing. The UK must be proactive in ensuring that our citizens’ cases are not allowed to stall for long periods of time.
Sixthly, families should have support to attend foreign trials, including financial assistance where it is desperately needed, logistical help and trauma-informed briefings. Attendance at trials should be a right, not a luxury. Seventhly, we need clear co-ordination within the UK. That includes consistent advice on repatriation, clearer guidance on coroner inquests and formal links to the peer-to-peer networks that can reduce isolation and provide lived experience insight, because it can often be so different.
Finally, we need an independent complaints and review mechanism, so that when support fails, families know that they have somewhere to turn. This mechanism must include the power to investigate, recommend and drive change. These points are important, because this provision does not exist at the moment.
The loss of a loved one to murder is already the greatest pain a family can endure. That pain should not be compounded by systemic failure, indifference or confusion. The families who make up the Murdered Abroad campaign have shown courage, dignity and resolve, and not just in seeking justice for their loved ones, but in trying to ensure that no one else suffers the way that they have.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He eloquently outlined the steps that would ensure that people who suffer bereavement abroad receive justice. Does he agree that as well as having a framework for going forward, we also need the Foreign Office to look retrospectively at historical cases to ensure that people who have previously suffered get the justice they deserve?
Mr Reynolds
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I said, about 80 families are affected each year, so this issue is ongoing and we need to make sure that where things have not gone right, we fix them and provide support to these families.
The changes that families are calling for are not radical; they are humane, reasonable and long overdue, so I ask the Minister directly: will the Government commit to working with families, consular staff, legal experts and campaigners to create a statutory framework for support, and will she ensure that no British family is left to face this horror alone, with only silence and guesswork for company?
Let us remember that if a British citizen were murdered on UK soil, their family would have access to a whole network of support—victim liaison officers, legal aid, local police, courts, coroners and therapeutic services. It should not matter where the tragedy happens; a British passport should still guarantee a minimum level of support from the British state. The UK must do better, because British justice does not stop at our borders. A British life lost, no matter where it happens, is still a British life lost. Compassion in the face of tragedy is not optional; it is a duty, and it is a duty that we should be taking on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) on securing this very important debate and on his thoughtful and compassionate contribution? He has used his voice this evening for the voiceless, and I thank him for doing so.
Losing a loved one to murder is devastating, but when that tragedy happens overseas, the pain is only compounded by distance, unfamiliar legal systems and the complexity of navigating bureaucracy while trying to grieve. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that families going through something so traumatic should never have to face it alone. They should be able to access support to help them cope and recover. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and this House that bereaved families in England and Wales can access support, even if the crime took place abroad.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on providing support to families bereaved through murder or manslaughter overseas. The specialist murder and manslaughter team in the FCDO’s consular assistance department provides emotional support to bereaved families and helps them to navigate challenging investigative and judicial processes in foreign countries. That includes when a death occurred in an event designated by the UK Government as an act of terrorism.
Families can receive updates on an investigation or trial, guidance about local legal processes, and help finding support services in the country where the incident happened. While the FCDO cannot intervene in another country’s justice system, it does all it can to ensure that families are kept informed and treated with compassion.
I do appreciate, however, that the experience of families in legal systems abroad, as we have heard from hon. Members, can be deeply painful at a time when they are already experiencing immense grief. This evening, I want to pay tribute to my constituent Nathan Osman, who tragically lost his life in Benidorm on 28 September last year. His family, including his sister Alannah, brother Lee and parents Liz and Jonathan, have given their consent to speak about Nathan today. My team and I have been supporting them for several months as they fight tirelessly for justice.
Alannah was initially contacted by the Spanish authorities on the day of Nathan’s death. The exchange of information was brief and unclear, with Alannah confirming her name only to be told, “Brother found dead, bottom of cliff.” They were told to contact the British embassy two days later and left with no additional information. The Spanish police initially—like in the case of Dr Ding, mentioned by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—ruled Nathan’s death as accidental and closed his case with little investigation or support. It was only thanks to the family’s research and investigation, with help from my team—specifically from Rebecca Lewis—that enough information was collated to reopen that case. I hope that will bring closure for the Osman family. While South Wales police did their best to support the family during the immediate aftermath of Nathan’s death, they had no direct contact with the Spanish authorities or Interpol to clarify if the translated information that the family had received was correct and accurate.
Jim Shannon
The point I made to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) was that families sometimes find out about these cases on social media or somewhere else. I would have thought that whenever the police in whatever country become aware that someone was a British citizen, they would immediately contact the embassy and make it aware of what had happened so that it could be the conduit. Could that be done? We have had a similar case in Northern Ireland, although I will not go into any details because it is an ongoing case. There is an important role for the consulate and the British embassy to play.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It should be the appropriate protocol for the police to be informed first of an incident in a country, with the families informed by the police in that country or by the police in our country via Interpol, as I said. But, in today’s modern age, sadly that is not always the case. It is not fair to the families that they find out second or third hand. An appropriate protocol should be in place. That should be how it happens. Sadly, we know that is not always the case.
The Osman family did not receive, and did not know that they could receive, a trained family liaison officer in Wales, and they were largely ignored by Spanish police. When they visited Spain shortly afterwards, they had to describe the situation on a mobile phone using Google Translate—we have heard that about similar cases—and there was extensive miscommunication throughout the ordeal between the family and external authorities, costing valuable investigation time and prolonging their agony.
There were many other issues with obtaining Nathan’s case file and coroner’s report, which the family believe contain a number of discrepancies. No one should have to endure what they went through. Losing a young family member in such horrific circumstances is a pain that few of us can truly understand, and they were retraumatised through various errors and miscommunications.
In the pictures and videos shared with my team by the family, it is easy to see what a dedicated father Nathan was to his young children and how much he is still loved and missed every day. I thank Alannah, Lee, Liz and Jonathan for sharing Nathan’s story with me, and I thank hon. Members for sharing their stories with me this evening. I am sure the whole House will join me in sharing all our condolences with everyone impacted.
Josh Newbury
I thank the Minister for the open and sensitive way in which she is responding to the debate and for sharing the experiences of the family of her constituent Nathan. I am familiar with that case. She heard me explain the contact that I am having with the family of Rob Spray in my constituency. Would she be willing to meet me and the family, when the time is right for them, to see what could be done to get them the answers they so desperately want?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Sprays’ experience. It is their lived experience and the experiences of other bereaved families that fuel me and give me that information to conduct my role as the victims Minister. I wholeheartedly welcome that correspondence and information.
In addition to the FCDO support that I have set out, the Homicide Service is commissioned by the Ministry of Justice to provide specialist practical, emotional, peer and advocacy support to families after a murder, whether it happened here or abroad. For homicides that occur overseas, that includes funding to contribute to the cost of repatriation to the UK, for the family to travel to the country in question, and for the interpretation and translation of documents, among other services. Crucially, this support is tailored to each family’s circumstances and is available for as long as it is needed, so that families are not left to navigate these challenges alone.
Tom Gordon
I have been helping a constituent whose relative was murdered abroad over 10 years ago, and it is still an ongoing issue. My constituent tells me that the responses from the FCDO have not always been prompt or clear, that there has not always been a named point of contact and that, sadly, in some instances there have been mistakes in emails that were labelled “official” by the FCDO. In addition to offering support to colleagues through talking about their experiences, would the Minister and her colleagues consider setting up some sort of drop-in to which MPs could bring their cases, so that we can all help our constituents to get the justice they deserve?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and I am so sorry to hear of his constituent’s experiences. It is exactly that type of experience that is fuelling me to find out what more we can do to support the families of those murdered abroad. I think a drop-in would be welcome, and I welcome correspondence from Members across the House on their experiences. I also appeal to families across England and Wales to let me hear about their experiences directly so that I can work with charities such as Murdered Abroad and the Victims’ Commissioner to see what more we can do for them.
We have a memorandum of understanding in place on murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad between the FCDO, UK policing and His Majesty’s coroner. This sets out clearly the support that is available when a British national is murdered overseas and the deceased has been repatriated to England or Wales. It clearly defines the roles of each signatory, setting out a shared commitment to working together in support of bereaved families. In some cases, this includes assigning a family liaison officer to bereaved families in the UK, although I appreciate that this is at the discretion of the local police force. At local level in England and Wales, police and crime commissioners also have the power to commission services for all victims of crime, including supporting victims where the crime has been committed overseas.
However, as I have already outlined, we recognise that for many families in this difficult position, it is not always clear what support is available or how to access it. That is why, as we develop the new victims code provided for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we are considering what further information can be included to better signpost help for those affected by crimes overseas. I intend to consult on the new code with all new Members and the public in due course.
Mr Reynolds
While the Minister is developing that code, and before we reach the point at which it is ready to be shared widely with the public, would it be valuable for her to meet Eve and others who founded the charity Murdered Abroad, and to talk directly to them about their experiences and how they could influence the code at this earlier stage?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. It is crucial that we consult organisations such as Murdered Abroad when looking at the new victims code. It is important that we consult all organisations supporting victims and survivors as we look at what else is missing from the code and how best we can provide that support.
That said, I should make it clear that we do not necessarily believe that the victims code is the right place to make provision for victims of overseas crimes. The code sets out the minimum standards of service that victims should receive when involved in cases dealt with in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is therefore designed around the laws and procedures that we have here in our jurisdiction and our criminal justice system, much of which will not be applicable in cases involving crimes overseas. It is therefore not the right vehicle to make provision for victims where the offence is investigated and prosecuted abroad, as consular support overseas relies on the responses of agencies in that specific country where the crime occurred.
I commit to the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House that, following the new code, my Department will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the FCDO, the Victims’ Commissioner and Murdered Abroad, taking into account the lived experience of others, to explore how we can make clearer what support exists for families affected by homicide abroad and what more we can do to support them.
We know how traumatic and isolating it can be to lose a loved one to violence in a foreign country. No family should face that kind of devastation alone, and our hearts go out to families who have gone, and are going, through it. When it does happen, those families deserve compassion, clarity and proper support. We are working to improve access to the help available and to ensure that those who need support know how to find it. I hope the hon. Member for Maidenhead is reassured by the measures I have set out and the steps we are taking to strengthen the support on offer even further.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument, I would like to highlight the important role that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency plays in safeguarding public health, and the importance of the agency’s continuing to be properly funded to deliver its role.
The MHRA is a world-leading regulator of medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion in the UK. It charges fees for its services; the fees are set to recover the cost of delivering a service, in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s guidance, “Managing Public Money”. To ensure that it continues to recover its costs, it aims to update its fees every two years, which is standard practice for Government bodies that operate on a cost recovery basis, and for other regulators, here and abroad.
All fees are set by taking into account various factors to reflect the cost of the activities involved in delivering a service, such as the time taken and the number and grade of staff involved; this is also informed by staff activity recording. In addition, in line with “Managing Public Money”, the MHRA includes the cost of services, of necessary corporate overheads and of system investments. Regular fee uplifts are necessary to ensure the MHRA’s long-term financial sustainability and enable it to deliver the responsive, innovative and efficient regulatory service that its customers expect, and one which protects and improves patient and public health.
The draft instrument will do three main things. First, it will update the fees that the MHRA charges for its activities regulating medical devices and blood components for transfusion. These fees were last updated in April 2023. The implementation date for the proposed changes is June, and they will ensure cost recovery until 2027.
Secondly, the draft instrument will introduce a fee for a new optional service: a regulatory advice meeting for medical devices. This new service will support manufacturers in interpreting regulations and requirements, particularly for complex, innovative products.
Finally, the draft instrument will introduce a new payment easement for small and medium-sized enterprises for clinical investigation fees. The easements will not reduce the overall fee, which would require cross-subsidisation, but will enable the fee to be paid in two instalments, providing some flexibilities for SMEs.
I should note that the draft instrument will not change the MHRA’s fees for activities relating to medicines regulation. Given the different legal positions in relation to the powers to make regulations about fees relating to medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion, the MHRA has used two instruments for this fees uplift. A second instrument for human medicines fees has already been laid before the UK Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly and has already come into force.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations will make amendments to the Medical Device Regulations 2002, the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005 and the Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021.
The core changes made by the draft regulations will include modifying the fees charged to manufacturers, suppliers and relevant stakeholders involved in medical device approval and blood safety monitoring. These amendments will align with updated economic assessments on the operational needs of regulatory bodies. They follow an impact assessment evaluating both the financial implications and the potential benefits for healthcare providers and patients. The fee amounts set out in the draft regulations represent increases of between 9% and 16% in the majority of fees, but some fees, primarily those relating to clinical investigations, will rise more. The fees are being set in line with the consultation document issued by the MHRA on 29 August 2024.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the impact assessment states that the main benefit of the regulations will be the additional income gained by the MHRA, but can she elaborate further on the benefits for patients and innovators?
The impact assessment also states that staff costs are the major cost for the MHRA. Will the MHRA pay the rise in national insurance contributions announced at the Budget, or will it be exempt? If it is exempt, will that mean that it does not pay the extra fees, or will it be recompensed after the fact? If it is to be recompensed after the fact, will that be based on exact figures or on an estimate? Where recompense has been based on an estimate, as has happened in schools, it has fallen very far short of what is necessary.
It is critical to ensure that fees do not deter innovation, particularly among smaller medical device manufacturers, which rely on sustainable costs to continue to produce lifesaving technology. How will the Government ensure that the fee increases do not deter innovation, particularly for small and medium-sized medical device manufacturers? Could the Minister elaborate on how the fee adjustments compare with similar regulations in other countries? What measures are being taken to ensure that UK manufacturers remain competitive?
The aim of the draft regulations is to increase the fees in line with cost recovery. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the MHRA is efficient and that costs are kept to a minimum? Is she satisfied that the regulatory service provided for the money is adequate?
Page 3 of the impact assessment has caused me some confusion. It states that
“the MHRA assumes a 2.2% pay increase for each of the next three years (2024/25 to 2026/27)”.
I note that that is below inflation, which is currently running at 2.6%. Is it realistic to expect below-inflation pay rises, particularly with this Government? Does the Minister think that that figure will stand? If the fees do not provide for full cost recovery, who will foot the bill? Will the MHRA have to reduce services, or will the taxpayer have to provide more via direct grant to the MHRA?
Finally, what provision is there for surveillance to monitor the impact of these fee changes on healthcare providers and patients, and whether they are enough, too much or not enough for the MHRA to cover its costs?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her speech. As she says, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is a world-class regulator that should be innovative, transparent and truly independent, while maintaining high standards and always putting public health first. In recent years, however, confidence in MHRA standards has been undermined by the Primodos, vaginal mesh and infected blood scandals. It is crucial that we ensure that those mistakes are never repeated, and that the MHRA regains the public’s trust.
The MHRA has suffered from insufficient staffing levels and inflexibility around funding and resourcing, and patients are the ones paying the price. The Government should aim for nothing less than halving the time in which new treatments reach patients for life-threatening conditions such as cancer. The Liberal Democrats therefore support additional resource for the MHRA, but that must go hand in hand with greater capacity and a stronger service to address past failings. Can the Minister confirm that when the regulations are made, we will see an increase in the speed at which patients receive treatments? Can she tell us when that improvement will be delivered?
Concerns were expressed during the consultation that fee hikes, some of which exceed inflation, will stifle innovation and undermine important research. What assurances can the Minister provide that there will be no deterioration in the number or quality of new products? Is she confident that payment waivers and easement measures are sufficient to stop small and medium-sized enterprises significantly cutting back their activity?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Chichester for their comments, which I will try to address.
As I think everyone agrees, the MHRA provides essential services that play a crucial public health role, and it is important that it recovers its costs, which is what these fee increases are set to do. The main benefit of the draft regulations will be that patients and innovators have the faster and better-delivered service that has been committed to. I meet the MHRA regularly, and I will be meeting with the new chief executive and chair later this week to make sure that the improvement that we have seen recently continues. I know that the whole House is interested in that, because, like all regulators, the MHRA is a huge contributor to the growth that we want to see as part of our growth agenda. I expect patients and the industry to see the impact.
Recovering the fees is crucial. It is also right that the regulated bear the cost of regulation, rather than it falling to UK taxpayers to subsidise it. By supporting the draft regulations, we will ensure that the MHRA continues to contribute to the Government’s health mission, balancing the responsibilities to maintain product safety and to champion innovation. It has made progress in responding to the recommendations set out in Baroness Cumberlege’s independent medicines and medical devices safety review. It has listened carefully to the people who gave evidence and to the findings of the independent review team, which are a matter of concern to many Members and constituents across the country, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, quite rightly highlighted.
The MHRA is committed to bringing about the changes that have been identified and to achieving ambition to be a regulator that absolutely delivers for UK patients, as well as delivering at speed to give confidence to the industry. We absolutely do not want to deter innovation; that is why in the draft regulations we are making some changes to support SMEs, which may find regulation more burdensome. We will keep that under review.
We expect the organisation to look closely at staff costs and make sure, like all organisations, that it produces the efficiencies needed to deliver a good service.
Dr Johnson
Before the Minister concludes, could she answer my questions on national insurance and on below-inflation pay rises? If not, will she commit to answering my remaining questions by letter?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to answer any questions, but as far as I am aware, they are NHS-employed staff, so they will be dealt with in the usual way. I am happy to write to the shadow Minister with any specifics if that is helpful.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are important to ensure that the MHRA has the resources that it needs to continue delivering reliable services and its public health role. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
East Park Energy solar farm
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
Income Tax: Personal Allowance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 702844 relating to the Income Tax Personal Allowance.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and it is a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee.
All colleagues from all parties will recognise the priority that the public place on improving living standards, as our conversations with constituents, polling and the facts of the matter tell us. The reality is that average disposable incomes after tax fell from 2019-20 to 2023-24 —an unprecedented and shocking situation in which people were left poorer at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the start of it. That is the key context for today’s debate, which has been triggered as a result of more than 250,000 citizens signing the petition on income tax personal allowances. It also speaks to wider and entirely understandable public frustration about living standards.
In preparation for the debate, I had the pleasure of talking to Mr Alan Frost, the creator of the petition and a constituent of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Mr Frost, who is in the Gallery, explained that he has recently retired, having worked his whole life. He feels a sense of injustice that his state pension is considered as income for tax purposes, and that the tax thresholds he faces are not increasing.
The events that led to that situation are as follows. In the 2021 spring Budget, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was Chancellor at the time, announced that the income tax personal allowance threshold of £12,570 would be frozen until April 2026. In the 2022 autumn statement, the Chancellor at that time, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), announced that the freeze would be extended for a further two years until April 2028. Following the change of Government, the current Chancellor announced in her autumn 2024 Budget that the freeze would not be extended any further, and therefore income tax personal allowances are expected to next rise in April 2028.
Although Mr Frost is a pensioner and his petition reflects a desire to boost pensioner incomes, he also believes that significantly increasing the personal tax allowance would benefit those in work, boosting incomes and reducing the need for benefits. That belief reflects the reality that less than a quarter of the 37 million income tax payers in the UK are over the age of 65. The vast majority of those paying income tax are of working age and are not receiving the state pension.
In their written response to the petitioners, the Government highlighted that making the suggested changes to the personal allowance would cost “many billions of pounds”. I am sure that the Minister will say more about that when he responds, but cost is a key element to discuss in our debate. It is Parliament’s responsibility to agree the ways and means of any policy it makes—that is, how to pay for what we decide to do.
I gently suggest that the events of the last Parliament remind us how serious that responsibility is. The mini-Budget of September 2022 announced tax cuts costing around £45 billion without explaining how they would be funded, and the market reaction to that announcement left ordinary people paying the price. An emergency reversal of those tax changes followed, but not before high inflation and interest rates hit the standard of living. I therefore urge our debate to be conducted in full consideration of the cost and funding of any tax policy changes.
Were income tax personal allowances to rise in the way suggested by the petition, there would be several other linked tax policy choices to be made, and those choices would determine the full cost of the change. For example, would the size of the tax bands above the personal allowance be maintained? Currently, the basic rate of 20% is levied above the personal allowance and up to about £50,000 of income. Would the size of that band be maintained if the personal allowance were increased by £7,500? If so, the point at which the higher rate of tax takes effect would, in turn, increase to almost £58,000, at further cost to the Exchequer.
Similarly, the additional rate of tax is currently levied on incomes above £125,000, so if the personal allowance was to rise, would that level rise proportionately too? Finally, the income tax personal allowance is aligned with the level at which people start making national insurance contributions; should that level also rise to £20,000, or would we return to a more complicated tax system in which income tax and national insurance thresholds were no longer harmonised?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. Will he join me in paying tribute to my constituent, Mr Alan Frost, for raising the number of signatures required to achieve the debate? Does he also agree that freezing the level of the basic allowance at £12,570 most heavily impacts pensioners with limited income, who find themselves paying more income tax on small occupational pensions as time goes by?
Lewis Atkinson
Of course, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to his constituent for securing this debate; 250,000 signatures is an extraordinary level of engagement in the democratic process, and that is to be applauded. I will make some points about the distribution of the benefits of income tax freezes later on in my speech.
The cost of the policy requested by the petition depends on the answers to the questions I just posed. Other Members may wish to speak about how they would approach such matters, but, to aid debate, I thought it would be useful to present some indicative costs. At this point, I want to place on record my thanks to the staff of the House, including those from the Petitions Committee and the Library, for their work in helping me to access such information.
The House of Commons Library estimates that it would cost more than £60 billion to increase the personal allowance to £20,000, make corresponding increases to the higher rate tax threshold, and raise the national insurance threshold to £20,000 to maintain alignment. That figure is consistent with the range of costs expected by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which I also met in preparation for this debate. The IFS estimates that increasing the personal allowance to £20,000 would cost somewhere in the range of £40 billion to £90 billion, depending on the choices made on the related tax matters that I have outlined.
To put those figures into context, at a minimum cost of £40 billion, the proposal would be at least as large as the tax measures proposed by the September 2022 mini-Budget, which were then quickly reversed after the economy crashed. At the higher end of the estimates—£90 billion—the cost of such a change would be around the same size as the entirety of public revenue spend on education, or two thirds of the total cost of the state pension. It is not for me, in introducing the debate, to advocate one way or another, but I urge Members contributing to speak frankly about the costs and funding of any tax changes they favour.
I hope it is also useful briefly to provide some context about how individuals throughout the UK would be impacted by increases in the personal allowance. The IFS notes that the income level of one third of adults is already below the existing personal allowance. That group—those with the lowest incomes in society—would not benefit from the changes sought by the petition, while the greatest benefits would be received by those who are best off. That is to say, in net, such a change would be regressive, increasing inequalities of income.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the petition’s argument. I came to the debate because an unusually high number of my constituents signed the petition. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about disparities, does he not agree that a considerable number of pensioners feel aggrieved and hard done by at the moment—and rightly so—because of a number of a policy decisions? That is why it is worth the Government having a proper look at the petition and what it proposes, and not just the financial aspect. If pensioners were able, for example, to earn a little more before they hit the threshold, they would have more to put back into the economy, and those who continue to work might want to do so for a little longer.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Of course, it was the previous Government who harmonised the income tax thresholds for pensioners and those of working age alike, the situation having previously been different. I absolutely recognise the stress felt by pensioners around the land. That is why such a debate is difficult without wider consideration of pension incomes and in particular the maintenance of the triple lock, which is not the subject of this debate, but which strikes me as important to consider.
As I was saying, there is a disparity between the potential benefits of a significant increase in the personal allowance for those with different levels of income, with those earning the most benefiting the most from such an increase. Members may also wish to know that there would also be significant geographic differences in the impact of any changes. The places with average lower levels of income—for example, Sunderland—would lose out relative to places with higher average incomes, which are disproportionately in London and the south-east. Were such tax changes funded by cutting public services, regions such as the north-east would lose out even more. I hope those matters of context will help inform the debate this afternoon.
I will end where I started, with a reflection of public sentiment on living standards. As other Members have mentioned, there is undoubtedly a strength of public feeling on these matters. We have to be frank: it is our job to improve the incomes and lives of the people that we serve. When I am out in Sunderland Central every week, that is the key issue that people raise with me, because for years they have been no better off and, in many cases, they are struggling to make ends meet. I get it. Putting more money in people’s pockets so they can do what they want is the public’s top priority. A key part of that is managing the public finances well. We all saw what the Liz Truss mini-Budget and unfunded half-baked tax plans did to living standards.
Lewis Atkinson
No, I will make progress. The public expect us to do better than that and they expect us to do more. They want wages and pensions to go up faster than inflation, as is now starting to happen. They want to the personal allowance to rise. I pay tribute to Mr Frost again for calling for those measures, and to all those who signed the petition. We should be hugely thankful to have citizens who are engaged in our parliamentary democracy, as the 250,000 people who signed the petition are. I look forward to an interesting, and I hope informed, debate.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Members will have noticed that the in-Chamber clock is not functioning, but the time can be seen on the annunciator—time is probably not of the essence in this debate. I remind Members that if they want to speak, they should bob, but I do not think that applies either.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. One in five people in the UK is now living in poverty. That is around 14 million people. Those are people in our communities: we see them at the school gates, we go to church with them and we meet them every day in our constituencies. Those people are struggling to navigate ever-increasing energy bills, rising food prices and other costs, while their wages do not keep up with inflation.
Last year, I was door-knocking in Gatley village, which sits in my constituency. It was one of those incredibly cold nights—the kind of cold that really bites through people’s fingertips. I came to one house where the lights were off. I was not expecting an answer, but a woman answered the door layered up in two dressing gowns, and with two small boys behind her. We talked briefly about the issues she was facing: rising energy prices, increases in her mortgage and the struggle to keep her boys fed and warm. However, what really stood out to me was the look in her eye, because it was the same look that my mum had when I was growing up.
When I was about 13, my mum, brother and I faced homelessness after our landlord hiked up the rent. My mum did everything to protect my brother and me from what was happening, and it is only now that I realise what she went through. She missed meals so her boys could eat. She would sometimes sit in the dark alone when the electricity meter ran out of credit and we had gone to bed. That was the day-to-day life that we were living. Many years later, seeing those two boys standing behind their mother in a freezing cold house reminded me how important it is to keep standing up for those people who are struggling day by day.
I thank Mr Frost for bringing this issue to the House. I believe that raising the personal income allowance could ease the burden that many people are facing, although it has to be when the finances allow. However, whether the Government listen to the signatories of the petition or not, more must be done to help those who are struggling.
The Conservatives effectively raised taxes by freezing the income thresholds for several years. Families and pensioners should not have to pay to clear up the economic mess left by the previous Government. This Government must find ways to lower the tax burden, so that more people are not dragged into poverty and so that more families can live in dignity and security.
According to Resolve Poverty, which was formerly known as Greater Manchester Poverty Action, nearly 20% of children in Cheadle live in poverty, while across Stockport the figure is over 30%. Make no mistake—the figure should be 0% everywhere. Raising the personal allowance would help, but if the Government refuse to do that, at the very least they must better support low-income earners who are struggling to afford the basics.
One way that the Government could act is by scrapping the unfair child benefit cap, which is one of the biggest drivers of rising child poverty. Many charities from across the UK, including Child Poverty Action, Citizens Advice and Save the Children, are advocating for the cap to be scrapped. As Dan Paskins, executive director of Save the Children, has said:
“good intentions are not enough. Children growing up in poverty need action and no child poverty strategy will be credible unless the two-child limit is scrapped”.
I finish by reminding the Minister of the story that I shared earlier: that mother, with two young boys standing behind her, doing everything she could to ensure that they were being looked after. No one wants to struggle. No one wants to choose between heating and eating, but it is still happening. In the sixth richest country in the world, that is not acceptable. The Government must do more to help those who are in work but still struggling, and more to provide support for those children being dragged into poverty.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
I start by thanking Mr Frost for launching this petition and the 250,000 people who have signed it. The number of people who have signed it speaks to the strength of public feeling about this issue, which is a serious policy challenge for all political parties. Indeed, I think the petition does more than showing the strength of feeling that exists. I regard it as a cry for help, because right around the country there are struggling families gripped by a cost of living crisis, there are high streets and small businesses gripped by the cost of doing business crisis, and people are crying out for the change they were promised.
Most ordinary folk work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes and expect certain public services to be there for them when they need them. Even when they become pensioners, they may well still be working. I hear time and again that pensioners want certainty. They have worked for their entire lives, they know how much money they have coming in and they need to know how much money is going out. They need to budget. When a shock comes along—whether something like the mini-Budget, a cut to the winter fuel payment or sky-high energy prices—they do not know what to do. They have far less capacity than other people to increase their income. Increasingly, pensioners have caring responsibilities, not just for their spouses but for their children, grandchildren or, even in some cases, their great-grandchildren. I take the petition as a cry for help.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I am incredibly proud that our policy when we were in government was to raise the personal allowance. That went through, and by April 2015, more than 3 million people had been taken out of paying income tax all together. It remains our priority to raise the tax-free personal allowance, as the best and fairest way of cutting tax when the public finances allow. And there is the rub, because the public finances are under enormous pressure and strain and, at the same time, there are very few signs of economic growth. We know that the public finances are in a terrible state in large part because of the mess left behind by the Conservative Government; in part, too, because of the growth-crushing Labour Budget, but also because of President Trump’s trade war. We have a toxic combination that means that people are seeing their seeing their taxes go up but not seeing services improve. It is leading to that cry for help.
As has been mentioned, the House of Commons Library briefing estimates that this measure alone would cost around £50 billion, and additional measures to equalise it with national insurance could cost £60 billion to £65 billion. If I remember correctly, I think the pandemic cost £40 billion, so this would be 1.5 pandemics, which is a staggering amount of money. None the less, we should not dismiss the call.
There are other things that we could do. We Liberal Democrats have said that the key to sorting out the public finances is to get more economic growth. We think that a key way of doing that is to improve our trading relationship with the European Union. Liberal Democrat research has shown that since the Brexit deal came into effect, small businesses have had to fill in 2 billion pieces of paper—enough paper to go round the world 15 times. The cost of that red tape is falling on to the shoulders of small businesses and, through them, their customers as well. Sorting out that trading relationship and ripping away that red tape will improve our economic growth.
We have also said that there are fairer ways of raising taxes. We have suggested that the Government look at increasing the digital services tax on the 20 largest online social media platforms and search engines. We have suggested that the Government look at increasing the remote gaming duty on those big gaming companies that made an enormous amount of money—billions of pounds in profits—during the pandemic, who we believe could pay a little bit more to help public services back on their feet.
We know that the Labour Government have gone some way to reforming capital gains tax. We have suggested alternative ways of reforming it to raise even more money than the Labour Government have raised, but also that we should raise that money from the 0.1% richest—the super-wealthy. There are fairer ways in which this Government could raise taxes from those with the broadest shoulders—those big corporations—to bring in billions of pounds in order to support people at the other end of the ladder.
There are other things that the Government could do. We have suggested that a home insulation scheme not only would be good for the planet by reducing carbon emissions, but would reduce people’s energy bills, meaning that the money that they do have would go further. Equally, by improving investment in our farming and reducing the cost of healthy, locally grown food, people would not have to spend so much of their money on food bills.
I thank Mr Frost again, and everybody who signed the petition. We as policymakers should take this challenge very seriously. We see it as a cry for help from those who are struggling the most at this incredibly difficult time. I urge the Minister again, as I have done many times in previous months, to look at some of the suggestions from the Liberal Democrats and to engage in those conversations about how we raise tax in a fairer way and support those who are struggling at this very difficult time.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In the last Westminster Hall debate that I took part in I think we were limited to 90-second speeches, so it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to expand at some considerable length this afternoon.
I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and the proposer Mr Frost for bringing forward this petition for debate on behalf of the 250,000 signatories, nearly 500 of whom come from my constituency. The petitioners have called on the Government to increase the income tax personal allowance to £20,000 to help low earners and pensioners. A bit of a spoiler alert: I think that they will be disappointed, because we have all seen the Government’s response that there are no such plans. It is worth noting that over the past 60 years, no Labour Government have left office with the tax burden lower than when they started. That is similar to employment; Labour Governments have always left the rate of unemployment higher than when they inherited it.
The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is forecast to hit its highest level since the second world war by the end of this Parliament. The cause of that pattern is philosophical: the belief that there is such a thing as Government money. In fact, there is only taxpayers’ money, and we Conservatives want people to keep more of it. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has said that we must drive taxes lower and do so in a responsible manner.
Other Members have referred to research by the House of Commons Library, that estimates a cost of between £50 billion to £65 billion—depending on the choices made on other parts of the allowance—to raise the personal allowance for everyone to £20,000, as the petition calls for. That is about what we spend on the defence budget. To introduce such a policy, people have to be very clear about the choices they are proposing: the spending that they would cut, the increases in other taxes they would make or, indeed, if they would fund this through borrowing. Anyone promising such an increase has to be honest about it, and set out their choices clearly and openly. The Conservatives will be doing that before the next general election.
The last Conservative Government increased the personal allowance significantly to benefit low earners—we made that a priority. It increased by 40% in real terms from 2010, from £6,475 to the £12,570 it is today. That change has benefitted millions of UK taxpayers. Of course, I also acknowledge that the last Government had to take the difficult decision to freeze that threshold until 2028. That decision was unwelcome and unpopular—I do not think it won us any votes—but it followed the hundreds of billions of pounds that we put in place to protect lives and livelihoods during the covid pandemic. Other parties were calling on us to spend even more, as I recall. That decision supported the poorest people the most.
Billions more were spent in response to the energy price shock—again, that money needs to be paid back. However, it is also the case that if the personal allowance had simply been uprated by inflation every year since 2010, it would only have been around £9,650 in 2023-24, which is lower than the current level.
At the last election, it was Labour that promised not to raise taxes on working people, which it broke in the October Budget with increases in national insurance. That was justified on the grounds of restoring financial responsibility and economic stability—referred to in the Government’s response to the petition. But it is hard to see that stability. The Government’s actions have led to a collapse in business confidence, and have seen taxes and borrowing rise at record levels. Meanwhile, growth—meant to be the overriding priority—has flatlined.
Last week’s cut in interest rates was welcome, but Labour’s policies are expected to mean that interest rates stay higher for longer than they would have done under our plans. Only last week, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research assessed that the Chancellor would miss her fiscal rules by £63 billion by the end of the forecast period. That came after the emergency Budget only a few weeks ago, that saw rushed cuts to welfare budgets, which colleagues across the House are concerned are untargeted. That was simply to spare the Chancellor the blushes of missing her own fiscal rules.
As a result of the Government’s actions, questions are being asked about the levels of personal taxation, particularly the personal allowance—the subject of the petition—which the Government pledge to unfreeze in 2028. The Chancellor made much of this at the autumn Budget, saying:
“From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
I think we might disagree about the second part of that quote.
The statement about the policy was clear and unambiguous, and it maintained the position of the last Conservative Government—to lift that freeze in 2028. According to recent reports in the media, this is an issue that the Treasury is looking at as it tries to keep in the too-limited headroom that the Chancellor has in place. Will the Minister give an unambiguous commitment and restate the pledge to unfreeze the personal allowance from 2028? It does not go anywhere near as far as the petitioners would want, but it would at least be something.
The petition refers particularly to the position of pensioners; the hon. Member for Sunderland Central referred to that. Millions of people who are in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it. Of course, many with modest private provision already face that situation. Forecasts suggest an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. At the general election, we had a very clear policy: the triple lock plus commitment, which would have ensured that people relying on the state pension as their only source of income would never pay income tax on it. Labour refused to match our policy at that time; in government, it has maintained opposition to it.
I have tabled several parliamentary questions to him, but the Minister has been reluctant to give the Treasury estimates of the number of pensioners who receive only the state pension whom he expects to pay income tax and when they will do so. Perhaps today he will come clean with the figures that the Government must have about how many pensioners will have to pay income tax, when all they have in income is the state pension. I assume he is aware of those figures and assessed their impact when the Government were deciding to cut the winter fuel payments, again from very vulnerable people.
Towards the end of the last Parliament, I supported measures by the then Government to cut taxes for working people through reductions in employee national insurance, the last of which, last March, was worth £10 billion. We believe in people keeping more of their own money, and the Minister should give the signatories of this petition clear answers to the following questions. Will the Government stick to their promise to increase the personal allowance from 2028? Are the Government committed to not raising the rates of income tax and VAT in this Parliament? Will the Minister rule out any further increases in national insurance rates? I look forward to his response.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart; this is our second debate together in the last few days. I extend my thanks, as many others have, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening the debate, and I congratulate Mr Frost, who created the petition. I also thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate for setting out their views.
I know that this petition has attracted almost 250,000 signatures, so, given the public interest in this topic, it is important that we are debating it. I recognise the views of everyone who has put their name to the petition, and let me be clear that, as a Government, we want taxes on working people and on pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives, to be as low as possible. We were elected to put more money in people’s pockets and, crucially, we were elected to do so in a fiscally responsible way. That is a critical point to understand. We want to keep taxes on working people and pensioners as low as possible, but if we were to follow the calls of some Opposition parties and abandon fiscal responsibility, it would lead to economic chaos and the collapse of public services, and that would harm working people and pensioners the most.
Raising the personal allowance to £20,000 would cost more than £50 billion. That is more than the £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts announced by Liz Truss in her disastrous mini-Budget. Conservative and Reform MPs may have cheered Liz Truss on, but like the British people, we in the Labour party know the damage that that caused, and we will never let it happen again. To put it another way, if £50 billion was taken out of public services, that would be equal to wiping out almost the entire UK defence budget or slashing the NHS by a quarter. The British people will not be the winners if public services collapse or chaos returns to the economy.
The Chancellor has taken the right decisions to get the UK’s public services back on their feet and to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability. We will fight to protect those hard-won gains from those who want to see them squandered. In that critical context of fiscal responsibility, however, the Government are doing everything we can to support working people and pensioners. In our first Budget, we decided not to extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds, meaning that people will be able to keep more of their income. We are supporting hard-working families and pensioners through the plan to make work pay and through our significant increases to the national living and minimum wages and the state pension. We know that we will be able to keep taxes down only by delivering sustainable economic growth, which is why our plan for change and our trade deals are so important to make people better off.
Of course, an important context for this discussion is the autumn Budget, in which the Government reset public spending and put the public finances back on a sustainable path. The decisions in the Budget were underpinned by the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap—the difference between what taxpayers owe and what is paid to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—alongside tax changes that make the tax system fairer and more sustainable while protecting people’s payslips. The Government are determined to close the tax gap as far as we can, because ensuring that everyone pays the tax they owe is critical for a well-functioning economy, for protecting revenue to fund our public services and for helping to keep taxes on working people as low as possible. In the spring statement, the Chancellor went further and faster to close the tax gap, raising an extra £1 billion in revenue for the public finances.
Turning to the personal allowance, it is worth beginning by recognising that the UK has one of the more generous personal tax allowances in the OECD, and the most generous in the G7. As we have heard in today’s debate, it was the previous Government who made the decision to freeze the personal allowance at its current level of £12,570 until April 2028. In the Budget last autumn, this Government decided not to extend that freeze and we kept the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance contributions and VAT unchanged, meaning that people will keep more of their income. We also had to take a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, given the situation that we inherited from the previous Government.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I think the reason so many people signed the petition is that the plight of some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society is on our collective conscience. I may have a helpful suggestion. I should declare an interest right away: my wife is disabled and I am her carer. I know of people who are carers and live in terror of an unexpected cost coming their way, such as the boiler breaking down in the north of Scotland or some horrifying bill throwing the finances out completely. I wonder whether it would be a kindly and humane step for the Government, or any Government, to provide for a mechanism whereby, when a nasty, surprise bill comes the way of a person caring for someone who is long-term sick or disabled, that bill could be offset against the tax payable by that person, or the married couple together.
James Murray
Of course, having a well-functioning welfare state is, in many ways, precisely about protecting people when they have unexpected shocks to their lives. I am not sure that the tax system is the best way to address that, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about ensuring that the state provides a safety net or cushion against unexpected shocks to people’s lives is an important principle.
The focus of today’s debate is very much on tax thresholds, particularly the personal allowance, so I will return to my comments on that. When we took office in July last year, no responsible Government could have let things carry on as they were. Likewise, no responsible Government could now raise the personal allowance to £20,000 at a cost of more than £50 billion, as such a move would put public services back on their knees or risk economic chaos that would push up inflation, mortgages and taxes.
The petition suggested that
“raising the personal allowance would lift many low earners out of benefits”.
We know that our benefits system is currently failing on all fronts; it is failing those who receive benefits, by not helping them to work where they can, and failing taxpayers more widely, through soaring costs to the public purse. We are fixing that by reforming the benefit system to make it more pro-work, while protecting those who cannot work. When people are in work, we want them to be better paid, which is why in April 2025 we increased the national living wage to £12.21 per hour, the third largest proportional increase since 2016, and that is expected to benefit over 3 million workers.
We have published the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which sets out the Government’s plans to reform employment, health and skills support to tackle economic inactivity and support people into good work. Our plan to make work pay represents the biggest upgrade in employment rights in a generation, bringing the UK back into line internationally. It tackles poor working conditions and job security, and by making work more flexible and family friendly, it will support our wider programme across employment, health and skills policy to get Britain working.
James Wild
The Minister referred to the Employment Rights Bill. Has he seen the survey from the Britain Retail Consortium in which 70% of the businesses that were surveyed, which are major retailers that employ half a million people, said that the legislation would damage their business, and half said that it would make them less likely to take people on?
James Murray
Many employers recognise that having a productive, secure workforce who can take pride in their jobs and contribute to their fullest ability at work is important not just for the employees themselves but for the productivity of the businesses. That is why we want to see workers with employment rights that will be upgraded through our plan to make work pay, alongside, as I mentioned a few moments ago, a stronger national living wage and national minimum wage under this Government.
That focuses, however, on working people and their rights at work and their incomes. The petition also raised concerns about the state pension being subject to income tax. In 2025-26 the personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic and full new state pension. That means that pensioners whose sole income is the full new state pension or basic state pension without any increments will not pay any income tax. The state pension continues to be the foundation of support available to pensioners, backed by the Government’s commitment to the triple lock.
This year, over 12 million pensioners have benefited from a 4.1% increase to their basic or new state pension, which means that those on the full new state pension will get an additional £470. Over the course of this Parliament, the yearly amount of the full new state pension is currently projected to go up by around £1,900, based on the latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Government also support pensioners through a range of other means, including free eye tests, NHS prescriptions and bus passes. For pensioners who are eligible for means-tested support, we provide pension credit and housing benefit.
I recognise the substantial support for this petition. Hard-working people and pensioners who have worked hard all their lives want taxes to be as low as possible; I understand that. However, as we have set out today, we inherited a mess from the previous Government and have had to take tough choices to set us on a path to generate economic growth. Raising the personal allowance to £20,000 would undermine the work that the Chancellor has done to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability, and it would slash the funding available for vital public services. This Government remain committed to keeping people’s taxes as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility. Fiscal recklessness hits working people and pensioners the hardest. Parties promising to raise the personal allowance to £20,000 would have to explain how they would cut the NHS by a quarter, or why they want a rerun of the economic disaster we saw under Liz Truss.
We as a Government are determined to go further and faster to deliver our plan for change with its key goal of putting more money in people’s pockets by kick-starting economic growth. We will always keep taxes as low as possible while never putting security for families and pensioners at risk. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken.
Lewis Atkinson
I will be brief. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. A debate on tax policy can be somewhat dry, but it is important to remember, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected, that there are personal stories and circumstances behind all the signatories to this petition and the emails in our mailboxes. People are struggling to make ends meet and trying to do the best for their families and raise their standard of living. It is important to remember that.
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the Minister for his response to the debate and all the Members who attended. I particularly thank Mr Frost for instigating the petition and all the petitioners who signed it. We have had a short but important debate this afternoon on the nub of the key economic policy debates facing the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 702844 relating to the Income Tax Personal Allowance.
Energy Security and Net Zero
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new paragraph 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.
[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 167.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks):
Michael Shanks
Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new paragraph 1A will apply only to applications made to Scottish Ministers, not to those made to the Secretary of State.
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme: Recruitment of Independent Panel and Appeals Board
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
The LGBT financial recognition scheme includes two types of payments: the “LGBT FRS Dismissed or Discharged Payment” and the “LGBT FRS Impact Payment”. The impact payment is available to all those who experienced pain and suffering directly related to the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces, including harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment There will be three tariff bands: level one or £1,000-£5,000; level two or £5,000-£10,000, and level three or £10,000-£20,000 and this will be determined by an independent panel who have now been appointed.
The independent panel will consist of Lord Paddick, chair, Alison Brown OBE, Frances Castle MBE, Dr Matthew Gould, Hannah Graf MBE, Craig Jones MBE, Caroline Paige MBE, Annabel Poate-Joyner and Emma Riley. The independent panel will sit as the chair plus four members, except in exceptional circumstances.
An appeals process has also been set up for both the “LGBT FRS Dismissed or Discharged Payment” and the “LGBT FRS Impact Payment”.
The appeals board will consist of Douglas Bosphore-Ward MBE, chair, Judith Henry, Rachel Ruxton, and Professor Tracy Myhill. The appeals board will sit as the chair plus two members, except in exceptional circumstances.
Both independent panel and appeals board members are appointed for a period of two years as direct ministerial appointments.
[HCWS625]
Roll-out of Early Years and Childcare
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government’s plan for change sets out a commitment to give children the best start in life, breaking the link between background and opportunity. We are ensuring that families in every community across the country can access affordable childcare places that deliver high-quality early education.
We have set a milestone of a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn. We will measure our progress through 75% of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment by 2028.
From 12 May, all eligible working parents of children who will be at least nine months old on or before 31 August can apply for 30 hours of Government-funded childcare for September 2025 as part of the next phase of the Government’s childcare expansion.
The increase in childcare places is already having a hugely positive impact on parents and children. Around half a million children have already accessed places, and the findings from our childcare experiences survey shows the positive impact of providing more Government-funded childcare places for more children in the first two phases of our roll-out. An overwhelming majority of parents —97%—who received a childcare eligibility code have gone on to claim the childcare offered, and 93% of parents were able to secure their first choice of provider. Families with lower incomes have seen the biggest benefits, with one in five households earning between £20,000 and £40,000—and 14% of respondents overall—increasing their working hours.
The crucial role that all early years providers and local authorities play in delivering the childcare expansion ensures that families across the country can access the support they need.
This roll-out includes up to 6,000 new nursery places in schools across the country, backed by £37 million, with up to 4,000 available from this September, helping to grow our vibrant childcare market, which gives parents access to affordable and high-quality provision where they need it.
Parents who currently receive 15 hours for working families should reconfirm as usual and the code will work for the 30-hours offer in September, providing they remain eligible. Codes need to be reconfirmed every three months, so if parents have applied prior to June, they may need to reconfirm their code before taking up a place in September.
Floor space requirements
We are removing barriers for early years settings to help them meet the demand for approximately 60,000 places by September 2025. To help achieve this, we are consulting on potential changes to the early years foundation stage statutory framework to include free-flow outdoor space in the current indoor space requirements. This includes considering whether there should be a cap on how much providers can use this to increase their capacity to try to mitigate potential risks to overcrowding. This change to the EYFS could help some nurseries to increase capacity safely and efficiently where the physical structure permits.
This proposed change is in response to the Department’s November 2023 “Pulse surveys of childcare and early years providers”, in which the majority of providers —70%—said they would be likely to use flexibilities in space requirements while ensuring continued high-quality provision for children.
Outdoor play provides huge benefits to children—including improved memory and problem-solving skills, the development of social skills like self-regulation and negotiation, and better mental and physical health—and it boosts school-readiness and learning. By consulting on this change, we will ensure that we can support nurseries to expanding their capacity while maintaining the highest standards of safety and quality in early education.
The consultation can be accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/space-requirements-in-early-years-childcare-settings-in-england
[HCWS627]
Sustainable Farming Incentive 2024
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
This Government inherited farming schemes which were underspent, meaning millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.
As set out in the plan for change, the Government are focused on supporting our farmers, driving rural economic growth and boosting Britain’s food security. Now is the right time for a reset via the reformed sustainable farming incentive offer, which will support farmers, deliver for nature and target public funds fairly and effectively towards our priorities for food, farming and nature.
In October, the Labour Government outlined plans to invest a record £5 billion into farming, the largest budget for sustainable food production in our country’s history.
As a result of this investment, a record number of farmers are now in farming schemes, and more money is being paid to more farmers under the SFI than ever before.
Earlier this year, the Government have successfully allocated the entire SFI budget and could therefore no longer accept new applications for the scheme.
There are more than 37,000 live SFI agreements currently in place, under which money continues to be paid to farmers this year and over future years.
However, an error was made when the current scheme was closed to new applications, the budget having been allocated.
I was not aware that people who had started an application and then saved it without submitting had been shown a “We’ve saved your application” screen containing two messages:
“If we need to close applications, we will give you six weeks’ notice. We will publicise this information on www.gov.uk and email you”. This message was shown in error due to a technical issue which meant that the message was carried over unintentionally from the online application used for the SFI 2023 offer.
“Your application will be available for two months for you to continue. If you have not submitted your application by then, we will delete it”. This message was intentional.
The first message should not have been included and I apologise for the confusion it caused.
I am addressing the situation and have remade the decision to close the SFI 2024 scheme to new applications, without notice, on 11 March 2025, taking into account the message that was published in error on the screen.
I have decided to allow applications to be made to the SFI 2024 scheme by those who had started an application within two months of 11 March 2025, but who had not submitted the application by that date. This is relevant to around 3,000 applications which were started on 12 January 2025 or later. Eligible applicants will be given a six-week window in which to make an application. My Department will shortly be contacting applicants who are eligible to let them know when this window will open and close.
Agreements will be offered to eligible applications subject to the following restrictions:
Only one application may be submitted per farm business.
Agreements will be offered up to a maximum value of £9,300 per year for the duration of the agreement—excluding the SFI management payment, which would not count towards the value limit. This maximum value reflects the median average agreement value for existing SFI 2024 agreements.
Agreement holders will not be able to add more land to “rotational” SFI actions after year 1 of their agreement.
I acknowledge that these restrictions are not part of the published SFI 2024 scheme. I have taken the decision to put these restrictions in place in order to be as fair and reasonable to the affected applicants as possible, while also ensuring the prudent use of public money and the wider public interest. Given that the budget for the SFI 2024 scheme has been fully allocated, any further agreements entered into under the SFI 2024 scheme will need to be funded from other areas of DEFRA’s departmental budget. I have therefore borne in mind the need to avoid creating unfairness to others or undermining other important objectives by unreasonably diverting funds from the wider farming and countryside programme.
My Department will announce further details on how this approach will be implemented shortly, including the timing of when applications from eligible applicants can start.
This decision does not change arrangements for small groups we previously announced would be able to make applications for agreements under the SFI 2024 scheme despite the closure of applications—namely farmers who were in the SFI pilot, assisted digital applications, and applicants with known system issues that prevented them from submitting applications. We will be contacting these groups shortly to explain the details of how this will be taken forward.
For all other farmers, SFI remains closed to new applications for the time being, pending the launch of the reformed SFI offer, which we will publish more detail about this summer. Work on this offer is already well under way. We are developing it in partnership with sector stakeholders, and the scheme will target public funds more effectively to meet the needs of both farmers and the environment.
Every penny committed through more than 37,000 live SFI agreements that were in place before 11 March will continue to be paid to farmers over the coming years. All eligible applications submitted before applications closed have been taken forward.
This decision will not impact the planned payment rate increase for farmers in higher level stewardship agreements, details of which are due to be released shortly.
We are investing £30 million to increase HLS payment rates so farmers in HLS agreements can continue to restore habitats, support rare species, preserve historical features and maintain traditional landscape features in our iconic countryside.
We are going further to develop a 25-year farming road map to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come with Baroness Minette Batters, former NFU President and farmer, appointed to lead a review of farm profitability.
[HCWS626]
Nursing: Professional Regulation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Nurses play a critical role in our healthcare system, and this Government recognise the vital role that nurses play in delivering safe, effective and compassionate care. Today we are proposing to protect the title “nurse” in law to ensure that only those registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council can use it, with limited exceptions.
The protection in law of certain professional titles is important for public safety. Protected titles are used by healthcare professionals to indicate their field of practice to patients and the public, providing assurance to the public that the person using that title is competent and safe to practise.
Currently, the title “registered nurse” is protected in law. However, the Government are aware of concerns, most recently raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the #ProtectNurse campaign, that this is not sufficient to safeguard the public, as it does not address the misuse of the title “nurse” by unregulated professionals.
This Government intend to amend the criminal offence of “misuse of professional titles” so that the title of “nurse” is protected. This amendment will be made as part of the Government’s professional regulation reform programme, which will modernise the legislative frameworks for the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and the Health and Care Professions Council during this Parliament.
As part of reforms to the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s legislative framework, we will create a new protection of title offence, making it a criminal offence for an individual who is not a registered nurse with the Nursing and Midwifery Council to call themselves a nurse.
The Government are aware that the term “nurse” is used across multiple professions, for example, “dental nurse”, “veterinary nurse” and “nursery nurse”. It is not our intention to prevent the legitimate use of the title “nurse” within these instances. The legislation will therefore include exemptions to allow other professionals to use the title legitimately, without the risk of prosecution.
The Government will continue to work with key stakeholders, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the devolved Governments, the Royal College of Nursing, trade unions, other professional representatives and the social care sector, on developing the protection of title offence.
This proposal demonstrates the Government’s respect for the nursing profession, dedication to patient safety and the pivotal role nurses have in our society.
[HCWS628]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lord, these regulations use powers contained within the Agriculture Act 2020 which enable the Government to address power imbalances within agricultural markets. These fair dealing powers allow for regulations that impose obligations in relation to the contracts of those businesses—usually larger businesses—that purchase from smaller producers. The fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act, and their first use in the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, have previously been debated in this House, with important contributions made. I therefore know that many noble Lords will agree that these powers can play a significant role in promoting fairness in this sector and beyond.
I should first say that the pig sector is a British success story, characterised by effective relationships between producers and processors. It is a sector that delivers high-quality products, enjoyed across the UK and around the world. However, where power imbalances exist, relationships are not always as fair as they should be. As a result, farmers have too often felt that they bear a disproportionate share of the risk when market challenges arise.
A public consultation in 2022, seeking views on contractual practices in the sector, highlighted several challenges faced by producers. Defra has developed these proposals in response to the concerns raised and in close collaboration with industry, aiming to ensure fairness for producers while taking account of the practical concerns of processors. I am pleased to report that many stakeholders believe we have struck the right balance—protecting farmers while supporting existing good practice.
There will be opportunity for detailed discussion, but I would like to begin by outlining some key provisions. First, I will say a word on existing structures that already serve to protect farmers. We heard from many producers that the collective negotiation undertaken through marketing groups is highly valued. These regulations preserve this arrangement, allowing collective sellers, who purchase pigs from more than one farmer without processing them, the same protections as individual sellers.
At the heart of the regulations is the principle that written contracts should be the norm. While many transactions already use written agreements, this is not consistent across the sector. Establishing written contracts as the default provides a vital safeguard for farmers’ rights and promotes greater transparency in commercial relationships. Although industry supported this approach, it was also clear that not every transaction requires a protected contract. The pig sector includes a functioning spot market, where pigs are traded off-contract, an important mechanism for managing supply. In these cases, and others, the regulations allow producers to issue a notice to disapply the requirements for certain purchases. However, in most cases, both farmers and processors benefit from certainty. When no notice to disapply is given, farmers must be offered a fully compliant written contract, which cannot be varied without their consent. We heard clearly that farmers often felt that changes were imposed on them unilaterally, and this is not in the spirit of an open and balanced relationship.
One of the key priorities raised was the need for clarity around agreed volumes of supply. Clear terms in this area will support better planning and ensure that both parties fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences if those commitments are not met. In the pig sector, pricing is already often linked to published data or other shared information, offering a level of transparency that benefits both parties. The regulations encourage this approach by placing fewer obligations on processors who base their prices on such information.
At the same time, we were clear that flexibility must be preserved. It is for producers and processors to decide together how prices are calculated, reflecting what works best for their commercial relationship. However, when pricing mechanisms use data or factors which are not clearly accessible to producers, it is right that contracts include provisions to allow farmers to verify that pricing is fair and consistent with the agreed terms.
In addition to volumes and pricing, the regulations require that contracts clearly set out all terms relating to the purchase, as well as essential elements of the agreement that define how the relationship will operate in practice. These include matters such as payment terms, delivery arrangements, and how and when the contract can be terminated. While the specific details of these terms can be negotiated between the parties, this clarity helps protect farmers by reducing the risk of sudden or unfair changes, ensuring that both sides understand their rights and responsibilities throughout the contract. Importantly, all contracts must include a dispute resolution procedure. This will promote dialogue and help sustain the successful relationships already present in the sector.
The regulations extend the enforcement powers of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The ASCA will investigate complaints about compliance with these regulations, as it already does in the dairy sector, on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Before I conclude, I should note that these regulations make an amendment to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. After those regulations came into force, the Government were made aware of unintended consequences regarding tiered pricing in exclusive agreements. We received representations from businesses with shared ownership structures, explaining that exclusive supply is central to their model, and that the prohibition on tiered pricing was inadvertently penalising arrangements that actually benefit producers. These regulations therefore introduce a limited amendment to allow such practices in cases where a shared ownership structure is in place.
In summary, I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that these regulations represent a significant step forward for fairness in the UK pig sector. They respond directly to producer concerns, protect practices that work well, and will promote more balanced and transparent contractual arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon and thank the Minister for giving us the outline. It is an interesting backdrop, in the sense that pig prices seem to have been at their highest for a while now. I have come straight from a meeting with some Danish businesses—none of them farmers. While I am half-Danish, I wish to help only the British farmer, I should explain.
I am a big supporter of auction marts. How will this provision impact on sales through such marts? Will they be left pretty much as is allowed at the moment? Presumably, the regulations will come into their own at a different time, when the prices are particularly low and when the farmers, or pig producers, are not covering the full costs of their production.
Having been an MEP in an area with intensive pig farming and then having gone on to be an MP in another area with equally intensive pig farming, it was very sad to see the impact of foot and mouth disease on pig production. Many farmers will simply not go back into pig production again. Anything that we can do, like the content of these regulations, is very helpful indeed.
The Minister referred to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I pay tribute to it. I still believe that we should go further and allow the adjudicator to look at the market and at particular supplies off its own initiative. If there is an imbalanced relationship that it is there to resolve—and overwhelmingly it has worked well—there is no way that someone is going to jeopardise it. That perhaps relates more to different sectors than to pigs, such as the dairy sector and fruit production. If you are in a contract and you are being unfairly discriminated against, it is difficult for you to jeopardise that contract by being identified as a complainant with the adjudicator. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue, please, to keep that under review.
Mindful of the fact of movement—which I do not think is covered by the regulations, but perhaps the Minister could write to me about this—we have a number of agricultural shows coming up at this time of year, right through to the autumn, and they are immensely important to the agricultural sector. Again, this probably covers sheep and lambs—I have not seen too many pigs at the Great Yorkshire Show, I have to say. Will the department give advice on movement of animals? I know it is on the case as regards avian flu, but some imports have already been banned because of foot and mouth existing in parts of the European Union. Will she make sure that the department gives advice at the earliest possible opportunity, well in advance of the shows taking place? That would be very welcome indeed.
I cannot let this opportunity go without singing the praises of the Malton pig factory. Again, while not directly within this remit, we have a bed and breakfast for pigs in North Yorkshire, and they are just as well looked after as we are at the famous bed and breakfasts that many of us stay in. One of the outlets for the bed and breakfast pig industry is the Malton Bacon Factory. It exported a huge amount to China, which takes pig’s trotters and other parts of the anatomy that I will not go into, which we do not enjoy in this country. That was a multi-million pound contract, and that might have gone by the wayside. The regulations focus probably more on those that do not necessarily have an initial contract.
One thing that struck me in the regulations—I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 21st report—is that it seems very odd in this day and age that many contracts are still not made in writing. Will the Government insist on that through the course of the regulation? The committee highlights in paragraph 44 that the requirements will
“include that all contracts are made in writing, contain clear pricing terms and set out how the price is determined”.
That relates to my initial question about how this will impact—presumably, the auction marts will be left alone and this will relate just to those contracts that are done individually. I would be very interested to know what proportion of the market is intended to be covered by the regulations. I welcome the regulations this afternoon and the opportunity to raise those issues.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is always instructive to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the Minister for her persuasive, well-informed introduction. I do not quite know how George Orwell—Mr Blair—would view these regulations, because he had it in for Napoleon. But the Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, and clearly Mr Andrew Powley has played a blinder in the department.
In another place, for some 31 years, I visited perhaps six farms a year, and one was hospitably received—bacon sandwiches were often on the farm menu. Indeed, I was once an Agriculture Minister in the lovely land of Wales. I cannot be the only one of your Lordships who regularly tunes in at 5.45 am to Radio 4’s informative farming programme. Pigs feature therein, and I am sure our Minister listens quite regularly to that programme—after prayers, of course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations but I have a few questions about them.
First, I give credit to the Government for bringing them forward. The gestation period of a sow is three months, three weeks and three days. This issue was first raised with me as an MP back in 2021 and the announcement was made in 2023, so heaven knows how many piglets have been born while we have been getting to this stage.
I want to get a sense of aspects of the contract and enforcement. So that noble Lords know, this came about during the Covid times, when we started seeing a shrinkage in the number of abattoirs. Farmers were starting to be constricted in which abattoirs were open. It was largely the large abattoirs, although not exclusively. As a consequence, farmers saw that, all of a sudden, prices changed, and it was take it or leave it.
There were further issues, and I will ask a question about size. Contracts were being written in a different way about the size of the pig that was being taken into the abattoir and whether it was slightly over in weight—obviously, while you are waiting for the pigs to go into the abattoir, they keep being fed. Farmers I knew were getting 10% of what they had expected, never mind the cuts that were being brought in.
I am conscious that it is very difficult to write the contract; we can see how long this one SI is in trying to reach the principle. On the review that is set out in the regulations, will the Minister perhaps share with the Farming Minister some thoughts on how the contracts are formed at the moment, to see how we start to accommodate for that? If we are getting into a particular situation, we might end up with the cancellation of the receipt of the pig in a way that forces a different way in which farmers are not properly compensated.
The first person who brought this up with me was the marvellous Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork. I see my noble friend Lord Deben is here—we both know Jimmy well. Of course, there are other great pig farmers. On the Suffolk coast, there is Dingley Dell, with the Hayward brothers, and there are many more around the country, as we have already heard. The threat of blacklisting was very real, and it is why we went to Victoria Prentis—who will soon be introduced to this House—which brought about the July 2022 consultation.
Who will undertake enforcement of the regulations set out today? The powers are attributed to the Secretary of State, but, as the Minister will know, we have seen, sadly, breaches of animal welfare just in the last month in an abattoir the name of which I have forgotten, and in other abattoirs as well. Often, these abattoirs want help from the Government, who are not always listening when we go to them for help for farmers. Will it be the Food Standards Agency, which probably has more interaction with abattoirs than any other part of government, bearing in mind the regulations and the listening? It would be useful to understand who is lined up to do that.
I am also quite keen to understand this: at one point, there was consideration around referring the number of abattoirs that were there to the Competition and Markets Authority. I am sure that this will have been considered, bearing in the mind the regulations laid out today. I appreciate that the Minister is not formally responsible for farming but, if she has anything on that, I would be grateful to hear from her now or by letter.
I have a final point. The concentration of abattoirs has happened, as I say, for a variety of reasons, and I do not want to get into the animal welfare issues in that regard. It meant that the previous Administration set up a small abattoir fund. That came to an end in September last year. I would be grateful to have an understanding of that. Again, I appreciate that this is not directly in the regulations, but it could inform in due course the review that is under way on effectiveness of the provision of that funding. I am conscious that it was a difficult decision for the Farming Minister today, in an announcement made in a Written Ministerial Statement, to reopen SFI 24 for farmers who had started their application. I think that, in the review, it would be useful to consider whether the expansion of abattoirs has actually happened. It is vital that, whether mobile or small, we try to make sure that there is a healthy market in this country.
As I say, I applaud the Government for finally bringing these regulations forward. They will be much welcomed, but there are still a few details on which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.
Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.
The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.
While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.
Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.
As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:
“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.
In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:
“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.
I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.
Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a dairy farmer and landowner. This is the second use of these powers following last year’s regulations in the dairy sector, and I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today.
These regulations represent a step towards rebalancing commercial relationships in the pig sector. For too long, small and independent producers have operated under contracts that lack clarity, fairness or enforceability. Many have found themselves at the mercy of buyers wielding considerable market power and facing reductions in volume, unilateral contract changes and dishonoured pricing agreements. These practices have created uncertainty and risk at the farm gate, and undermined confidence across the supply chain.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument requires that all contracts between qualifying sellers and business purchasers be in writing and include transparent pricing terms. It prohibits unilateral changes to contracts, mandates dispute resolution mechanisms and sets clearer parameters around termination clauses. These provisions will enable producers to request a written explanation of how prices are determined if not based on objective and accessible criteria. The Minister also highlighted the usefulness of the notice to disapply in agreed circumstances.
The need for such reforms has been well evidenced. Our previous Government’s 2022 consultation received 374 responses, of which 89% supported mandatory written contracts and 64% said existing agreements were not consistently honoured. These regulations reflect this feedback and follow a constructive sector-specific approach.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support for the regulations and for the contributions that have been shared on this instrument. There seems to be consensus that, even in a market that often functions well, as we have heard, it is essential to protect the smaller producers in the supply chain, so I welcome the support.
The specific requirements that are set out in the regulations—on volumes of supply, pricing, contract variation and termination—represent a significant step forward for the pig sector. Dispute resolution provisions will also support continued dialogue and collaboration across the supply chain. At the same time, the regulations are designed to protect and support existing good practice. I am confident they will strengthen the many successful relationships that already characterise the industry.
I turn now to some of the specific points that were raised. Some noble Lords talked about the different flexibilities that we have built into the regulations. I want to be clear that we are confident that they will not be easily misused. The reforms deliver a real and meaningful improvement in transparency for pig producers, which has often been lacking in the past. If the reforms are to be effective, they have to be proportionate and reflect the realities of how the sector operates, which is why we have built in flexibility. That does not mean we are going to be hands off in the approach to it.
I assure noble Lords that implementation is going to be closely monitored. If we find that the flexibility is such that the notice to disapply is being abused, or if the behavioural changes we expect do not materialise, we will not hesitate to revisit our approach and take further actions. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked if we are going to be keeping an eye on it, and the answer is yes.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about auction marts. First of all, pig sales through auction marts are quite limited but they will not be impacted. This is one area where the notice to disapply may be appropriate to use. If a notice to disapply is given to the business purchaser by the producer, the regulations do not need to be complied with for that specific purchase. I hope that helps to clarify that.
The appalling pig crisis of 2021 and 2022 was mentioned, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. Everyone in the sector wants to make sure that that does not happen again. As we have heard, at the time, there were a number of related factors, including the Covid pandemic, a lack of skilled butchers and declining export demand, and we ended up with a backlog of pigs on the market, which is why we had the awful cull that we witnessed. That was quite unusual, though, and it was quite difficult to avoid what was almost the perfect storm that built up at that time. We need to learn from it, which is why these regulations will make sure that farmers do not bear any disproportionate levels of cost when market challenges come up in the future.
The regulations outline that both producers and processors need to be clear about the levels of supply that they can expect in advance. That will be subject to negotiation between the parties, to maintain flexibility, and those agreeing a contract would be able to agree any tolerances for over and under supply levels. The new rules outline that contracts should say in advance what the remedies would be for either party when agreed levels of supply are not met by the other party. This could be a financial remedy, a change in future volumes that would be supplied, or a suspension of existing penalties; we need to look at each individual situation. What is important is that it will be open for negotiation between the parties, written down in advance and subject to change only by mutual agreement of both the farmers and processors alike. The whole point is to ensure certainty and transparency across the marketplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Cranswick incident and the difficulties around animal welfare and the breaches at that particular abattoir. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is investigating—it investigates every allegation that is reported to it. Obviously, I cannot comment on that because it is ongoing, but I reassure the noble Baroness that APHA is looking at that.
Lord Deben (Con)
Should we not be extremely pleased at the immediate steps taken by supermarkets and others when they heard about this allegation? And it is an allegation at this stage. It shows that we now have a very much more acute understanding of how animals should be looked after and what welfare really matters, which is crucially important for those of us who believe that eating meat is a satisfactory and proper thing to do.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the work the supermarkets did. They do not always get the credit that they should. That swift reaction was really important. It shows the industry coming together, right across the board, when something really appalling happens that is breaching regulations. I absolutely agree.
There were a number of questions about the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender, and others mentioned that. For those covered by the groceries code, the GCA has prioritised communication of the statutory requirement to maintain supply confidentiality. The GCA has relaunched the Code Confident campaign, launched a confidential reporting platform called Tell the GCA, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality, which we hope will help. The GCA’s fourth statutory review is currently ongoing. That is being led by the Department for Business and Trade and will also allow for feedback to be provided in this area and in others.
For those covered by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, a complaint does not need to be made from a producer for ASCA to investigate and perform enforcement functions where necessary. The current Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has confirmed that it will always seek confirmation from the producer that they are content for a complaint to be formally investigated before contacting a purchaser and sharing any information. It has also recently launched the Contact ASCA in Confidence service, learning from the GCA’s Tell the GCA scheme; this allows producers and anyone else to raise issues with ASCA confidentially. Although ASCA will not be able to open a formal investigation without an actual complaint, the information provided will help inform its activities.
On who will enforce this, which a number of noble Lords asked about, the option to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was explored in a formal call for evidence back in 2016. This concluded that the extension of the GCA’s role further along the supply chain would not be appropriate. Part of this is because the Groceries Code Adjudicator has a very specific remit: regulating the relationships between the largest grocery retailers in the country and their direct suppliers. These regulations focus instead on the contracts that pig farmers hold directly, which are almost exclusively with the processing companies. We are therefore confident that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—obviously, it also handles enforcement for the dairy sector, as noble Lords will be aware—is the most appropriate means of enforcing these regulations. It will continue to focus on regulations made under Section 29 and this first important stage of the supply chain.
I mentioned dairy sector enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked whether this will be sector by sector. It will be introduced sector by sector going forward.
I was asked whether the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has sufficient resources. ASCA was relatively recently established. Enforcement for the dairy regulations began only in July 2024—less than a year ago—and existing contracts are not being covered until July this year. Currently, the office is sufficiently resourced to fulfil its remit of enforcing the regulations in the dairy sector and, soon, in the pig sector. However, we will monitor resourcing requirements as the regulations take effect, so that we can respond accordingly if need be. Similarly, we will continue to do so as further reviews are conducted and as more sectors come into scope.
Why did we choose this route instead of reforming the GCA? We have talked about the fact that we did the consultation but, particularly for pig producers, this is a highly consolidated part of the supply chain. Just four processors account for the vast majority of pig purchases. We believe that, to deliver the greatest benefits in fairness and transparency, it is right that we focus on this primary relationship between producers and processors.
These regulations were developed with extensive engagement with industry, and stakeholders were invited to comment on detailed drafting—including the text of the statutory instrument itself—to confirm that they found the whole approach workable. We are committed to using the fair dealing powers wherever they are needed. We are now working with industry on the proposals for fresh produce and the egg sectors, which will be the next areas that we look to bring in. We will continue to work with stakeholders as we do that.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked about the size of the pig herd. We do not actually know how many pigs there are, but we know that the UK pig industry is worth £1.6 billion at the farm gate and £5 billion at retail. Considering food service, external sales and export values, we think it is worth over £14 billion in total. I hope that that helps him to understand the size of the industry.
Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, forensic science is an integral part of delivery of the criminal justice system in the 21st century. I am a devoted fan of television programmes on real crime in the evenings, and I can honestly say that I have not yet seen one where DNA, drug analysis, mobile phones, photos, messages, health apps or emails have not brought the criminals to justice. Bringing people to justice is absolutely central to what we do. I put on record my thanks to the police and forensic scientists in this country for all they do in delivering these crucial services.
The Government’s mission is to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls, and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system. We are also consulting on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards and improve efficiency.
None of this can be done without access to high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 was a significant milestone for forensic science in England and Wales. It established the Forensic Science Regulator as a statutory officeholder, giving it power to take action when it has 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. More pertinent to this Committee’s work today, the Act requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice. This code will formally define which forensic science activities will be regulated and set out the standards that forensic practitioners must meet.
The very first version of that code came into force under the previous Government in October 2023 following parliamentary approval. It was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. We recognised that, due to the novelty of those statutory requirements, the regulator would have to examine a second version of the code in due course.
We have undertaken a consultation on version 2 of the code, which was launched in early 2024. This resulted in 1,230 comments from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Policing and wider law enforcement constituted 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups from across the forensics community. The result is that version 2 of the code is laid before us today.
Most of the changes are minor or technical and clarify existing provisions. Some practical issues that arose only when the first version of the code was implemented have now been addressed and rectified. The most significant change in version 2 of the code relates to the regulation of incident scene examination. For some time, concerns had been raised with the regulator by policing concerning the effectiveness of the incident scene examination requirements set out in version 1 of the code. Version 2 streamlines that process and will now require a corporate approach by each police organisation, and eliminates the need for individual assessments across 149 different sites. The regulator believes that this will save significant police staffing hours and should therefore be welcomed.
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 savings for the police. Overall, version 2 of the code has been designed to continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and to help guard against miscarriages of justice.
Finally, I put on record my thanks to Gary Pugh, the Forensic Science Regulator, who will be retiring towards the end of this year. During his term he has overseen the transition of the role to that of a statutory officeholder and produced the code of practice before us today. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, it is of note that the Minister, both opposition spokespeople and the chair are all Welsh, as we talk about forensic science. I wonder how often that happens.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, it seems as though the Taffia are taking over.
I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in the chair of this Committee. This is the first time I have seen her in her new role, and I congratulate her and wish her well. I know she will bring the same high level of professionalism to this role that she does to every other role she holds.
I welcome very briefly these updated provisions, which offer much-needed clarity and a more streamlined approach to compliance in incident scene examination. A consistent corporate framework is a sensible step forward in reinforcing accountability across the sector. In a field that plays such a critical role in the justice system, clear standards and effective oversight are essential. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details on two points.
First, how many small and micro businesses are currently involved in commercial forensic work? Have they all been made aware of the need to comply with the updated code? How will their compliance be monitored to ensure that standards are met across the board? Secondly, the code mentions that it will be reviewed at regular intervals. Can the Minister clarify what that means in practical terms? Certainty around the timing and process of review would help build confidence in the regulatory framework. It is essential that we ensure that all providers, large and small, are held to the same high standards to maintain the integrity of forensic evidence and the public’s trust in our justice system. This statutory instrument has the support of these Benches.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, like the Minister, I too am a fan of forensic science. I well remember the introduction of DNA evidence during my police service in the mid-1980s, and of course some very challenging crimes have been solved by scientists using forensic science.
I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. This measure brings forward version 2 of the statutory code of practice, as required under the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. These provisions marked a significant step forward, placing the regulator on a statutory footing for the first time and mandating the creation and upkeep of a code to govern forensic science activities across England and Wales.
Version 1 of the code, which came into force in October 2023, was the first statutory code of its kind anywhere in the world. It represented an important milestone in improving the quality and consistency of forensic science. Version 2, which we are considering today, introduces a series of technical and procedural amendments aimed at improving clarity, efficiency and regulatory consistency. Many of these changes respond directly to issues raised during the early implementation of the original code, such as simplifying the accreditation process and refining standards around scene examination and other forensic practices.
We welcome the introduction of a transitional period, extending to October 2025, to support providers, particularly small businesses, in adjusting to the updated requirements. We note that changes were made following a broad consultation process, which received strong support from across the forensic science community. We support efforts to strengthen forensic standards, particularly where they serve to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. None the less, we believe that it is right to raise several points for consideration.
First, on the question of regulatory burden, have the Government undertaken a full and transparent assessment of whether these revised provisions meaningfully reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, especially for smaller providers? Will a formal post-implementation review be carried out to ensure that the intended efficiencies are being realised without compromising quality?
Secondly, we would welcome clarity on how the regulator intends to remain responsive to future developments. Forensic science is a rapidly evolving field and it is essential that the regulatory framework remains adaptable. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a rolling review process for ensuring that the code is kept up to date in a timely manner, rather than relying solely on periodic revisions?
Finally, on stakeholder engagement, while it is encouraging that the initial consultation involved a wide range of voices, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to maintain ongoing dialogue with front-line practitioners as the code is implemented in practice?
In conclusion, this revised code of practice represents a constructive step forward in refining and strengthening the regulatory regime for forensic science. While we support the direction of travel, we will continue to monitor implementation closely and encourage the Government to remain responsive to ongoing feedback from across the sector.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their contributions. As a relative newcomer to the House, I had not realised that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had not chaired the Grand Committee before. I wish her well. I note also that all of us speaking in the Committee today have been Welsh by election—if not in my case by birth.
Lord Deben (Con)
Just in case anybody misses me out, I am Welsh also, but I am not actually speaking in this debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My knowledge broadens daily. In all the years I have watched the noble Lord from a distance, I had never realised that—we learn something every day.
The points raised were valid points. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I do not have a figure for the number of SMEs but there has been wide consultation. This is not a new requirement: version 1 has been in place and version 2 is a slight update with some slight tweaks. I hope noble Lords are aware of that. To minimise the impact of the requirements, including on small and micro businesses employing up to 50 people, the regulator is allowing a transitional period from the date that the version 2 code of practice comes into force until October 2025, for all providers to become compliant with version 2 of the code. There is a learning space for small businesses.
Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations. The Government have published an Explanatory Memorandum alongside them, and I shall begin with some brief background as to how we have got to where we are.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, known as the IPA, provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. I recall it well, having served on the Bill, in both draft and original form. It never fails to surprise to me that it is almost 10 years ago since the Act came into being. It helps to safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way in which the powers are authorised and overseen. The IPA is considered to be world-leading legislation that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial protections for privacy.
The IPA was intentionally drafted in a technologically neutral manner, to ensure that public authorities could continue to acquire operationally relevant data as technology evolved. While this approach has largely withstood the test of time, a combination of new communication technologies and the changing threat landscape continues to challenge the effective operation of the Act.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 was introduced by the previous Government and received Royal Assent in April last year. To ensure that the legislative regime remains fit for purpose, the 2024 Act made a series of targeted changes to the IPA to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.
That gives rise to the purpose of these regulations. The regulations before us bring into force three new and five revised codes of practice, which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising their functions under the IPA. As well as including minor updates and changes to ensure consistency, the codes of practice have been revised to reflect various changes made by the 2024 Act under the previous Government.
The new codes on bulk personal datasets with a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party bulk personal datasets relate to new regimes introduced by the 2024 Act. The new code on the notices regime consolidates guidance from various existing codes into one place. The regulations also contain several provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including defining “relevant change” for the purpose of the new notification notices. They also introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to membership of the technical advisory board.
The regulations and code of practice have been informed by a 12-week public consultation which closed in January 2025. The Government received responses from a range of stakeholders, including interest groups, public authorities, technology companies, trade associations and members of the public. We made several changes following that consultation, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes and changes to the technology advisory board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published and, should Members wish to see it, is available online or it will be at a future date.
To sum up, these regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act. They will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt and prosecute the most serious crimes. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to give us some idea of the ongoing arrangements for the updating of this kind of material. He has shown that the constant need for this is because of the speedy change of the world outside. Who is responsible for it? How are they able to keep up to date and how regularly do we think we are likely to have statutory instruments updating the material that we have? We are dealing with an ever-changing scene which is changing ever more quickly. I would like to understand the government structure that enables us to make satisfactory changes rapidly enough to see that we are fully in control.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. These regulations implement key provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government. These regulations introduce three codes of practice and revise five existing ones.
The new codes provide a framework for two regimes introduced by the 2024 Act— the treatment of bulk personal datasets where there is a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the authorisation of access to third-party datasets. A third new code consolidates guidance on the notices regime, including the operation of notification notices and what constitutes a relevant change—a key test for when telecoms operators must inform the Secretary of State of technical updates.
The revised codes also enhance oversight and safeguards by clarifying the conditions for lawful access to data, strengthening protection for journalistic material and requiring notification of serious data breaches where it is in the public interest. These regulations also make important structural updates to the technical advisory board, expanding its membership and adjusting its quorum rules to ensure it can operate effectively when dealing with complex or concurrent reviews.
We welcome these provisions and, with that in mind, I raise several broader points. First, on legislative responsiveness, these regulations reflect the speed at which both threats and the technologies behind them are evolving. The 2024 Act rightly introduced flexible tools for handling internet connection records and bulk data. But agile legislation should not rely solely on periodic amendments. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to conduct regular reviews of the framework and whether a structured timetable has been established to ensure that the legislation continues to meet operational needs?
Secondly, on stakeholder engagement, the Government’s consultation included contributions from technology companies, civil liberties organisations and public bodies. Although this engagement is welcome, several respondents raised concerns, particularly regarding the practical implications of notification notices and the definition of “relevant change”. Given that, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders as these codes are implemented?
Finally, on oversight and accountability, the powers under discussion are significant. Their legitimacy depends on effective safeguards; this is especially true for third-party bulk datasets, where individuals may not reasonably expect their data to be protected. Can the Minister confirm that the revised codes provide the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with the necessary clarity and authority to ensure that these powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately?
The 2024 Act was designed to safeguard national security in a rapidly evolving digital world. However, the use of investigatory powers must always be lawful, properly overseen and proportionate in its impact. Although these reforms offer practical steps to modernise the existing framework, we must ensure that these powers are used responsibly, reviewed regularly and held accountable, balancing security with our democratic values.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for those two contributions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned again how the Government will keep these matters under review. He will know that, basically, the 2016 Act was passed on the basis of cross-party support. The 2024 Act was a review of whether the 2016 Act needed to be amended further, while the regulations before the Grand Committee today are the outcome of some of the changes to that 2024 Act.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act made a series of targeted changes to ensure that the regime was fit for purpose but, self-evidently, the Home Office will keep under examination the new technology and the need to make any further amendments. I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance as to when and how that will be done, but he can rest assured that if amendments to the 2016 Act, which was amended in 2024, are required, they will be brought to the House as a matter of some urgency.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, also mentioned public consultation; I very much welcome his welcome for of these regulations today. The responses that the Government received included various suggestions for amendments to the draft codes of practice and the regulations. We have made changes as a result; these are quite wide but include changes to the Technology Advisory Panel’s membership requirement. I know that he mentioned telecommunication companies in particular. Again, we are satisfied that there was sufficient input from them during the passage of the 2024 Act and that the points they raised were taken into consideration when preparing the codes. Obviously, again, we need to examine the wide space between telecommunications companies’ powers and responsibilities, including their responsibility to protect the individual and the consumer. I think that we have got the balance right here.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about oversight. Strong safeguards are in place to ensure that investigatory powers are used in a necessary and proportionate way. There is independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the right of redress via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anybody who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner independently oversees the use of investigatory powers and will ensure that they are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest. Several other powers—I hope this also reassures the noble Lord—are subject to the double lock, where warrants must be signed by the Secretary of State and an independent judicial commissioner. These powers are deployed only in connection with the most serious of crimes or national security.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned for a couple of minutes until we find the Opposition spokesperson.
Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 25 March 2025. If approved, they will make provision about the new procedure that must be followed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and/or NHS England when preparing and publishing information standards. Information standards relate to the processing of health and adult social care information. They can facilitate information to be shared easily, in real time, between health and adult social care organisations, providing a common set of requirements that must be followed. They are fundamental to ensuring interoperability and delivering a more integrated system in health and social care.
Currently, the health and adult social care system lacks a joined-up approach to technology and data solutions. This is in part due to low compliance with information standards, which are not yet mandatory. This makes it hard to achieve change or deliver improvements that are consistent across health and adult social care. For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a transparent and standardised way, using common specifications, so that it can be understood and used by health and care professionals across different settings. To be effective, standards should be mandatory, as they will be in the near future, following commencement of the relevant provisions in the Health and Care Act 2022.
Noble Lords will appreciate that this was legislation made under the previous Government. I would hope that the current Government, in taking this forward, indicate a degree of unanimity on the need for a good system of standards, which support interoperability. Existing standards have not undergone a standardised approach to their preparation or review. This inconsistency has contributed to low compliance with information standards, which has made it harder for health and adult social care providers to understand what they are being asked to do and for data to be easily shared between different services.
Building on the provision in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Health and Social Care Act 2022 makes compliance with information standards mandatory. These procedural regulations that we are considering today set out a specific process that must be followed in developing and publishing all information standards going forward. Parliament permitting, once the Data (Use and Access) Bill becomes law, they will be mandatory for not just providers of health and adult social care services but the IT providers with which they contract.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the element of consultation that the regulations would require. This has also been part of the process of developing these regulations, as there has been a public consultation and extensive engagement with stakeholders to ensure that we get this right; an impact assessment has also been published. The procedures outlined in this instrument have therefore been carefully considered and developed, taking into account views from stakeholders across the health and care sector. They will ensure that information standards are fit for purpose, kept up to date and reviewed regularly as needed; and that they keep pace with technical developments and evolving priorities. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, although we recognise the ambition behind these regulations to foster better integration and data sharing across health and social care, we harbour some reservations regarding their scope. We are deeply concerned about their implementation, including the costs there, and the potential impact on individual liberties.
We understand that the need for seamless information flow to improve patient care and service delivery is undeniable. We as Liberal Democrats have long championed a more joined-up approach—one that empowers professionals with the right information at the right time. However, as always, the devil lies in the detail. This statutory instrument, while aiming for laudable goals, raises several critical questions that demand thorough scrutiny.
First, we are concerned about the breadth of the data being mandated for collection and sharing. Although the consultation response attempts to address concerns about proportionality, the regulations still appear to cast the net very wide. We must ensure that the data collected is strictly necessary and proportionate to the intended purposes; and that robust safeguards are in place to prevent mission creep and unwanted intrusion into individuals’ lives. The potential for sensitive personal information to be accessed and shared across numerous entities requires the highest level of scrutiny and ironclad guarantees against misuse.
Secondly, the consultation response highlights ongoing concerns regarding interoperability. It is worth noting at this point that there were only 132 responses to the public consultation. That is rather worrying considering that we are talking about nearly 2,000 private sector entities involved in providing the type of health and care about which we are talking.
There are real issues around the technical capability of various organisations, particularly in the social care sector, to implement these standards effectively. Many providers, especially smaller ones, lack the digital infrastructure and resources to integrate the new data systems seamlessly. Without adequate financial and practical support, these regulations risk exacerbating existing inequalities and placing undue burdens on already-stretched services. We need assurances that the implementation will be phased and adequately resourced, ensuring that no part of the health and social care system is left behind.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that, if the impact assessment were in a kitchen, it would be a colander: it has so many holes and assumptions that it is not worth the paper it is written on. I have read many impact assessments but never have I read one that says, basically, that, because we do not know the standards, we have not spoken to the IT suppliers and we do not really understand what it is we are asking to be implemented, we cannot make a real, positive determination of costs. In paragraph 24, it says:
“In brief, as future information standards remain an unknown, the costing has had to be based largely on a set of informed assumptions”.
However, when you read the informed assumptions, you see that they are not informed—they are just assumptions.
The impact assessment goes on to say that it has not really been appropriate to speak to IT suppliers as it is too early to have an indicator of the compliance costs. It also makes it very clear that the way in which small social care providers will potentially have the ability to implement this cannot be guaranteed; and that there could be market fragmentation. I have some questions for the Minister about the impact assessment and the robustness of the assumptions made. When the Minister read the impact assessment, what concerns were raised to her? What assurances have been given to her, particularly regarding small social care providers’ ability to implement what is being asked of them?
On costs, what assurance has the Minister been given with regards to the quantum of costs? The impact assessment makes it clear that these costs cannot in any way, shape or form be guaranteed to be the total cost, particularly for small to medium-sized enterprises. What assurances can the Minister give the Committee that, if certain costs go beyond a certain ceiling, the implementation period will be either extended or paused? This is an important point, particularly when many social care providers are already on the brink of financial instability; many talk about not being able to absorb further costs. If the Minister cannot give me assurances, I will probably raise this matter on the Floor of the House; it may be that, because of the details that I require, the Minister offers me a meeting to give me reassurance before this is discussed in the House.
We also note the continued ambiguity surrounding the explicit consent mechanisms and the rights of individuals to control how their data is used. Although the consultation touches on these matters, the regulations themselves lack the clarity and strength needed both to guarantee genuine informed consent and to provide individuals with meaningful choices regarding their data. We believe that individuals must have a clear understanding of what data is being shared, with whom and for what purpose; and that they must possess the right to object in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I therefore wish to pose the following extra questions to the Minister. My first is on the timescale of and reasons for bringing this statutory instrument forward. Based on the fact that the impact assessment says that,
“despite best endeavours to collect and draw upon strong evidence, cost and benefit assumptions remain uncertain and based on limited evidence availability in places”,
why has this statutory instrument been brought forward? Why could it not have been brought forward when there was more certainty and understanding of the implications of its implementation?
Secondly, given the breadth of data mandated for collection, what specific purposes will the Government put in place to ensure strict proportionality and to prevent the collection and sharing of information that is not absolutely necessary for the stated purposes of these regulations? Also, how will the Government guarantee that these measures will be actively monitored and enforced?
Thirdly, acknowledging the significant disparities in digital infrastructure across the health and social care landscape—particularly in the social care sector—what concrete financial and practical support will the Government provide to ensure the equitable implementation of these standards? What is the projected timeline for achieving full interoperability across all relevant organisations? How will the cost implications of this implementation mean that that timescale could be flexible? Considering the fundamental importance of individual autonomy and data privacy, what further steps will the Government take to strengthen the explicit consent mechanisms in these regulations, ensuring that individuals have clear, accessible information and meaningful control over their own health and social care data when it is shared and used?
We believe in the transformative potential of data to improve health and social care. However, this transformation must be built on a foundation of trust, transparency and respect for individual rights. I therefore urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns and ensure that these regulations truly serve the best interests of the individuals they are intended to benefit. I remind the Minister that it might be useful to meet before this goes to the Floor of the House, in particular with regard to some of the issues in the impact assessment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a rather disrupted session, to say the least; I will do my very best to keep some continuity. I start by offering the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, reassurance that we are happy to meet, and we recognise the detail of issues that he has asked for. I will not be able to give a response now, but if he will bear with me, we will write to him to take the issues forward.
In summing up, I emphasise that the procedures set out in the instrument are a crucial pillar in the design of a robust information standards framework to cover health and adult social care. I believe they give a clear process for consulting to ensure that mandatory standards are appropriate, while avoiding cumbersome procedures. They will ensure that the appropriate procedural rigour is consistently applied—a major concern of the noble Lord—particularly while the information standard is being developed, and will make sure that the standards are all fit for purpose.
The noble Lord raised concerns about potential creep resulting from the regulations. I assure him that, where data is used for purposes beyond direct care, only data necessary to meet the specific purpose will be made available. Where data is used for purposes beyond direct care, it is normally anonymised, and patients are entitled to expect an obligation of confidence for the health and care services they receive. A number of safeguards ensure that data is used for the purposes for which it was shared. These include provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK general data protection regulation regarding limitation of purpose, the Caldicott principles, security standards and toolkits, independent advisory bodies and a national data opt-out. These ensure that health and care data is used in a safe, secure and legal way.
The noble Lord also raised concerns about the burden of these procedures, particularly on social care, and specifically referenced small providers. I know that he is very active in this space and will be talking to people out there.
We need to make sure that mandatory information standards introduced as part of the staged process beginning later this year focus initially on those that are critical or most beneficial to improving integration of care. We need to remember throughout the ultimate purpose of this: to bring a better service to patients or users of services.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I fully understand and respect that answer, but it does not answer the question that I asked. I did not at any point in my intervention undermine why this was needed, and I actually said that we on these Benches are supportive. I asked why it is coming now and why it could not be delayed until we have further information. The Government’s own impact assessment says that,
“despite best endeavours to collect and draw upon strong evidence, cost and benefit assumptions remain uncertain”.
It is not just the cost and benefits; the assumptions remain uncertain and based on limited evidence. My question was why this needs to come forward now. What is the key issue that means this has to be debated and go through Parliament now? Why can it not come forward when some of those assumptions, and the uncertainty about the assumptions, are stronger?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I must admit that I had hoped that I had answered the question on the sequence of the processes. All I can say, again, is that it is about the whole process going forward, and obviously the costs and benefits will depend on the information that is gathered as we move forward with these principles. If the noble Lord is still not satisfied, this can of course be part of the information that I share with him going forward.
Moving on, the regulations set the process that will be followed in preparing and publishing information standards. Following on from that, it is absolutely appropriate for the Government or the body that they designate—such as NHS England—to set information standards for the health and care system to ensure that we have interoperability. As I have said before, we have run a public consultation and published its findings. NHSE has undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement, which will be ongoing. The last thing anyone wants to do is make the changes opaque and difficult to understand. Of course, we have to keep all of this in proportion, given the amount of information we are talking about, and make sure that it is completely relevant and fit for purpose.
The overriding conclusion is that we need to create a modern health and adult social care service where systems are integrated and staff have quicker access to patient data, freeing up time that could be spent with patients. Ensuring that information flows between services in the NHS and social care is a prerequisite of a responsive and effective service that meets people’s needs. Mandated information standards will set the technical means to ensure that this happens. I hope the Committee as a whole will recognise that setting these standards to ensure that IT systems and services can share data easily is fundamental to delivering the most effective health and care systems, and will agree that these regulations are practical and proportionate.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument was laid on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the “made affirmative” parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 24 April.
Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international rules and norms, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming to power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners. This includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military-industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support to Russia. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet.
The Government’s support to Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid, as well as our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme. Two-thirds of our extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme funding has now been disbursed and will support Ukraine to obtain vital military equipment. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing this. That is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions.
The UK has now sanctioned over 2,400 entities and individuals under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade. Russian imports into the UK have fallen by more than 98% compared to pre-invasion levels, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain this relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations.
We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine to create space for talks on a just and lasting peace. We commend President Zelensky’s commitment to peace by expressing his openness to direct talks with Putin. That is why the Foreign Secretary is hosting the Weimar+ meeting in London with partners from across Europe at what is a key moment for Ukraine and the collective security of our continent. The time is now for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or face the consequences.
The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. This instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin from building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of over 150 new trade sanctions. This includes new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and it will expand our prohibitions with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth.
I now turn to each measure in this instrument. First, the instrument introduces new export prohibitions on a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means to procure products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying the prohibitions to a broader set of technology related to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise, whether that is contained in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how, from critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design and oil and gas exploration and production. Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy. Therefore, the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive.
Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. These target future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes.
Finally, this instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable DBT’s Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation to enforce certain trade sanctions offences and refer serious offences to HMRC for criminal enforcement consideration.
To conclude, the Government remain committed to European security, and committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values which continue to be attacked by Russia. Sanctions, including this trade package, are a key part of our efforts. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear turns what the Government are doing. We support these measures. The Government are rightly continuously moving to ensure that any previous omissions are corrected, as these instruments do, that new and emerging technologies are covered, as these instruments do, and to ensure that there is a watching brief on the circumvention and operation of third countries, as these instruments also do. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, but I think we all hope that the diplomatic work being done at the moment will bring about a ceasefire on terms that benefit Ukraine, its integrity and sovereignty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that we on these Benches continue to support strong, targeted sanctions in response to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Since 2022, the UK, alongside our allies, has imposed an unprecedented range of sanctions to weaken Russia’s war machine. There are clearly some concerns; we would like to see further action taken, with regard to enforcement and the shadow fleet, et cetera—I agree with the previous speaker.
Despite these efforts, Russia has continued its aggression, often working through third countries and illicit networks to bypass existing sanctions. The persistence of these efforts underlines the importance of closing loopholes, keeping sanctions up to date and aligning with our international partners.
As the Minister set out, these provisions aim to tighten and expand the existing sanctions framework. One key element is the expansion of export-related goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. It is clear that these have potential military applications, and we support their inclusion. Notably, even items such as video game controllers are now being restricted, due to their reported use in piloting drones. I suspect Russia probably will not have difficulty in obtaining those from other sources, but nevertheless it is important to make the effort. Can the Minister clarify how these additions were identified? How often is the department reviewing product categories to ensure that sanctions keep pace with technological adaptation?
The instrument also brings in new restrictions on the transfer of software and technology, not only physically, but through intangible means such as downloads and cloud access. This is an important evolution of the regime, particularly as cloud-based platforms become more central to global business and infrastructure. However, it does again prompt the question of how we are going to enforce such sanctions when there is no physical movement of goods. Does the Minister have confidence that our enforcement bodies have the technical capacity to monitor compliance with these intangible software restrictions? Are businesses being given clear guidance on what is now prohibited?
On import bans, we note the Government’s decision to sanction synthetic diamonds processed in third countries, building on the ban already in place for natural stones. While I suspect that Russia is not a major producer of synthetic diamonds, this appears aimed at closing a circumvention route. What evidence does the Government have that synthetic diamonds are being used to sidestep the existing sanctions on natural stones? How are we working with allies to enforce traceability and verification?
We also note the inclusion of helium and helium-3 in the list of banned imports. This, too, is framed as a pre-emptive step, anticipating the growth of helium as a potential revenue stream for Russia in future. Will the Minister please confirm whether there is current evidence of Russia scaling up helium exports, or is this purely a precautionary measure?
There are also some important technical clarifications in the SI, including the correction of omitted offences and clearer enforcement responsibilities across government departments. Although these may seem fairly minor, such details are vital to effective enforcement. Will the Minister please confirm whether further regulatory gaps are under review, particularly given the pace at which circumvention technology is evolving?
With those few questions, we support the intent behind these measures. They reflect an ongoing commitment to tightening the UK’s sanctions regime and maintaining pressure on the Russian Government. But sanctions can be only as effective as the enforcement and adaptation measures. As Russia continues to develop complex workarounds—from third-country trade to its unregulated shadow fleet—we, the sanctioning countries, have to be equally agile. That includes reviewing measures regularly, ensuring that departments have the capacity to act and strengthening international co-operation. In that spirit, will the Minister please say more about how the Government are assessing the real-world impact of sanctions—not just in terms of goods restricted but in terms of their broader economic and strategic effect on Russia’s capacity to wage war? We believe that these regulations are a step in the right direction, but they must be part of a broader, joined-up and rigorously enforced sanctions strategy.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and broad support for these measures. The measures introduced by this instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, to help secure an enduring peace and to show that we remain fully behind Ukraine.
This instrument is one part of a broader cross-government effort on sanctions. We are leading the way on sanctioning Russia’s shadow fleet and continue to target Russia’s military suppliers and kleptocrats. We are going after those who support Russia in circumventing UK and partner sanctions, using all the tools in our arsenal to stop the supply of critical military equipment to Russia. This has included designating bad actors re-exporting sanctioned Western goods to Russia and working with our allies to crack down on the illicit trade of advanced machine tools.
We will continue to engage with our financial institutions and businesses so that they have the information they need to comply with our sanctions. The Government are committed to ensuring robust sanctions enforcement. To this end, with the support of ministerial colleagues, we launched a cross-government review of sanctions at the first small ministerial group on enforcement in October. The review concluded in April and—I think this will be of interest to noble Lords opposite—Parliament will shortly be updated on the review conclusions, alongside publication. I think that will involve a Statement to Parliament; I am not completely sure but, if it does, perhaps we could get into those issues a bit more at that point.
On the issue of the OTSI and HMRC, and how that operates in practice, I am very happy to organise another briefing for any noble Lords who are interested; that is a really good suggestion. I expect that it will be quite in-depth and technical; I know the noble Lord would like nothing better than that, so we will make sure that it happens as soon as we can arrange it.
We work very closely with partners on the shadow fleet. The noble Lord alluded to diplomatic efforts. We raise these issues constantly; I myself have raised them with partners who have had vessels involved in this, and they have taken action as a consequence of that. Sanctions are an important tool that we have, but they are far from the only tool.
Both noble Lords were quite right to remind us how important enforcement is. Although we do not comment on future designations, clearly, we keep all of this under review. We are looking at any regulatory gaps that there may be, and we will continue to take further measures as and when we need to; I do not anticipate that this is the last time we will stand here introducing these sorts of measures. I thank both noble Lords for their consistent support on these issues. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said on the issues of the ceasefire and the behaviour of Putin. I thought that his remarks about Zelensky were well made, and I agree with them.
The UK has transformed its use of sanctions. The Government are committed to continuing to strengthen the effectiveness of our sanctions regimes, their implementation and enforcement; and to reviewing their ongoing appropriateness in changing foreign policy contexts. We will continue to put pressure on Russia, as it is now time for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending the war—or face the consequences. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regimes.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict. Vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. They desperately need support to recover and to rebuild their country.
On 24 April, this statutory instrument was laid, amending the Syria sanctions regulations, to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. That instrument revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure—above all, in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.
This is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery. On 12 February, the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. The Statement made by the Minister for Europe in the other place on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following this, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and several energy companies.
Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, these amendments, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy, bring the regulations up to date. In light of the fall of the Assad Government, the purposes of the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.
Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and which we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. These include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior. The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.
A number of members have rightly raised deep concerns in the past about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East updated the other place in his Statement on 10 March. We have also seen violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Members may ask why we are lifting sanctions at this time. I reassure noble Lords that we will keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. The revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.
The violence we have seen has given us an image of Syria’s future if the new leadership chooses the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians, to ensure that they are included in the political transition taking place. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace and ultimately no better future for the country. This is a message we consistently emphasise in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani. But there have also been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. The president’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, are welcome.
We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of the president to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles and combating terrorism and extremism.
Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed, so we will continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phase of the transition.
We are encouraged too by the positive and constructive engagement Syria has demonstrated with the UN Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled, and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue our commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.
The appearance of the Foreign Minister at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was an historic moment, and we welcome commitments by the Syrian Government that they will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. The OPCW reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.
The agreement made by the president with the Syrian Democratic Forces on north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We will continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process as implementation of the agreement progresses.
Beyond our action on sanctions, we remain committed to helping meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing life-saving assistance to millions of Syrians inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.
To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would benefit Iran and Russia. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the Global Coalition—and illegal migration, and risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security in line with the Government’s plan for change. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for her balanced and nuanced tone on these measures. These measures, unlike the previous measures, give me a bit more concern. I agree with the Minister that we want to see a Syria at peace within its borders and beyond. There should be restraint from neighbouring countries in acting within its sovereign borders. The Minister was absolutely right that there are positive signals, signs and actions. But there are also those which have provided some worry in recent weeks.
When we previously debated measures that allowed humanitarian licences to be issued, my party supported them. That is fully justified; the humanitarian situation within Syria remains grave. The Government are to be commended for the humanitarian support that they are providing with our partners. That is especially the case when we are working with local civil society groups, which are working extremely hard. It is the best means by which we can avoid facilitating those who do not share the overall ambitions of the Government for civil rights, human rights and humanitarian needs.
This is one area where the structure of doing this through statutory instruments prevents, for example, probing amendments on areas we would like some further clarity on. The Minister referred to the recent attacks on the Druze and the concerns about the restrictions of rights for minorities. The Government were right to condemn these, and the Minister is right to do so. As she alluded to, this is the second set of incidents; it could highlight that these are not isolated incidents. There needs to be action as a result of the fact-finding inquiries to ensure that they are prevented from happening again.
The Minister will recall that I separately raised concerns in the Chamber about the work being done on the national curriculum. It seems to be reflecting sectarianism, continuing antisemitism, extremist language and violent content, and erasing women and minorities. This is in clear contradiction to the last bullet point in the Government’s ambitions for Syria, for
“the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in Syria without discrimination, including on the basis of a person’s sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion”.
The probing amendment I would seek to bring would ask for a report on the implementation of some of the policies and how they interact with the new liberties that the UK is providing, especially for financial services, financial markets and the operation of the private sector at the direction of those who, while they may not be part of the proscribed terrorist organisation, are working with them. The proscription in UK law is not only for the organisation itself, but those that facilitate, finance and support it. The catch-all is quite broad. I would hope that we would also have a report on what the ongoing assessment is on proscription. When will it be the time that there is a view that that proscription should be lifted overall?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important statutory instrument. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The legislation before us amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to reflect the developments following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December last year. The stated intention is to support Syria’s recovery while maintaining pressure on those responsible for past atrocities.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument revokes several key sanctions that were originally imposed to constrain the Assad regime. These include restrictions on aircraft operated by Syrian Arab Airlines, prohibitions on investment in Syria’s energy sector and bans on trade involving aviation fuel, crude oil and related technologies. The rationale is that lifting restrictions will facilitate economic recovery. Crucially, prohibitions remain in place on military goods, chemical weapons and surveillance equipment, signalling continued vigilance on matters of security.
These are indeed sensitive and consequential decisions. Although I think we all recognise the goal of supporting Syria’s reconstruction, the question must be asked: on what grounds have the Government determined that the time is now right to lift these specific sanctions? Syria remains an unstable, fractured state, and many individuals and networks once aligned with the regime retain significant power—as, of course, do several elements of al-Qaeda.
Accountability must also remain at the forefront. The UK has rightly condemned the human rights violations committed under the Assad regime, which was truly awful, but how does this instrument ensure that those responsible are prevented from benefiting from sanctions relief? What mechanisms are in place to pursue justice and guard against the erosion of international human rights standards?
We also seek clarity on the broader strategic approach. The US and the EU have taken carefully calibrated steps in adjusting their sanctions—some temporary, some conditional. Have the Government engaged in consultation with our international partners? Are these measures aligned with a co-ordinated international effort, or do they mark a unilateral shift in approach?
Given that the instrument follows earlier amendments that eased restrictions to facilitate humanitarian aid and adjust financial services, will the Minister clarify whether we are now entering a broader phase of graduated sanctions relief? If so, what specific benchmarks have been put in place to justify this latest easing of measures, and under what conditions do the Government foresee making further changes?
There is also the role of Iran to consider. The Assad regime did not fall in isolation. Iranian military and financial support helped sustain it, and Iran continues to exert influence across Syria’s political and security landscape. Does this statutory instrument reflect a broader diplomatic position towards Iran’s activities in the region? What role does the UK intend to play in countering destabilising external actors?
Finally, we must ask who will benefit from these changes. If the goal, which I share, is to support ordinary Syrians—those who have borne the brunt of over a decade of war—how will the Government ensure that economic relief does not simply entrench new elites or resurrect old networks under new names?
If the sanctions regime is to evolve, it must do so with clarity, caution and accountability, guided by the principle that peace cannot come at the expense of justice. I am sure the Minister will tell us that these matters are always kept under review. I have sat in her chair in the past and have been passed notes by officials which tell me that everything in government is always up for review and kept under review, and can always be changed. That is a truism, so I hope the Minister will not revert to telling us that again in response to these questions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
How can the noble Lord read from that distance?
I thank noble Lords for what they had to say; it is completely understandable, and both noble Lords are right to raise their questions and concerns. I accept that this is a judgment that we have made. Both noble Lords indicated that they understand that we made it because the best prospect for the people of Syria, and to deliver the stable peace and the inclusive and representative democracy that we wish to see, is through economic growth and stability. It is just not possible for the fledgling Government in Damascus to be able to deliver that while these sanctions remain in place.
Of course, we work closely with our international partners. I would not say that we co-ordinate as such, but we work very closely. As noble Lords said, the EU has eased some of its sanctions; we have gone one step further today. We think that this is the right approach. We have the flexibility to be able to keep this under review, as noble Lords knew I would say. It is perfectly right for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to say, “Yes, but these are different, so there needs to be a different exercise of that constant reviewing as far as these sanctions are concerned”. I think that is right and I commit that we will do that.
As regards future opportunities to discuss this in the House, I do not know if I can instigate that—my Whip is sitting here thinking, “Don’t you dare”—but I think it would be a good thing to have a debate on Syria generally in the near future. I know that noble Lords are wily enough to figure out how they could bring about such a thing.
Some of the sanctions that we had were specifically tied to Assad, so, given that he is no longer there, we needed to take a fresh look at this. Now that we have that in these regulations, we are able to make further designations—although obviously we do not comment on that or make any predictions. However, that capability is there.
As noble Lords said, it is true that there are other states who wish to exert influence and bring about instability in Syria. That is our strong view and that of regional partners who are hosting a large number of Syrian refugees at the moment. They have some support from the international community but nevertheless, it imposes a huge strain on them. In Jordan, I met Syrian refugees who desperately want to go home and they asked us about our sanctions regime. They know that the only way that they are going to be able to safely return is if there is a stable Government in Syria, and that requires the ability to grow a stable economy. They know that cannot happen quickly. They know that their children’s education, their healthcare and their ability to support themselves depend on it, and they want to see the international community stepping up and being active in its support for the new Cabinet and Government in Syria.
That is not without qualification, and noble Lords must hold this Government to account on that—I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated that they will do so. It is a precarious time for Syria, but I believe this is the best hope and may be the only chance we get to build the stable country that the Syrian people need and so deserve. If we do not do everything we can to support them at this moment, we may well find ourselves looking at a bigger disaster than we have seen in the region for a very long time, and wishing that we had been a bit more proactive at this point. That is why the Government are taking those decisions, while accepting what noble Lords have said and the legitimate questions that they put to me.
To conclude, I thank the noble Lords for their insightful contributions, and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regime more generally. The Government are committed to keeping our sanctions up to date and supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, more prosperous and more hopeful future. I know many noble Lords will agree that this is the future that the Syrian people deserve. I beg to move.
Introduction: Lord Jack of Courance
Autism Employment Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of the Buckland Review of Autism Employment, published on 28 February 2024.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. That is an honour I share with my friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—from the Opposition Benches, who is not with us this afternoon as she is in the Select Committee looking at the working of the Autism Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the independently led Buckland Review reported to the previous Government with recommendations aimed primarily at employers. This Government are committed to raising awareness of neurodiversity and have launched an independent panel of academics with expertise in and experience of neurodiversity to advise us on boosting neurodiversity awareness and inclusion at work. The panel will consider the reasons why neurodivergent people have poor experiences in the workplace and a low overall employment rate, and will make its recommendations to employers and government in the summer.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, when asked in the other place about progress in implementing the Buckland Review of Autism Employment, my honourable friend Alison McGovern said that she preferred the term “neurodiversity” as it is “more inclusive”. Neurodiversity is very broad, whereas autism is a specific condition. Will my noble friend the Minister think again and perhaps reassure the House that this umbrella term will not be used when responding to the review? There is a danger that the needs of autistic people will be overlooked, and I have the permission of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, to tell the House that she shares that concern. Robert Buckland’s review is specifically about the employment of people with autism—full stop.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and commend him for his work in this area. The Buckland Review reported to the previous Government, who did not formally respond, but most of the review’s recommendations were to employers. Several recommendations relating to government are being progressed, including working with employers to reform Disability Confident.
I think my honourable friend the Minister for Employment was signalling that this Government have broadened their focus to address employment barriers for all neurodivergent people, specifically including those with autism, while recognising that many people have more than one condition. Our academic panel is reviewing the evidence, recommendations and insights from the Buckland Review, so that they do not get lost. I understand the fear that my noble friend is expressing, but it might reassure him to know that the panel specifically includes expertise on autism. Although this Government will not respond specifically to the previous Government’s report, the Minister for Employment, Alison McGovern, alongside the Minister for Social Security and Disability, met Sir Robert Buckland to discuss his work. Professor Amanda Kirby, chair of the academic panel, recently met Sir Robert to discuss its scope and plans, and he was supportive of the way that the panel would build on the work he initiated. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, first, I have an autistic grandson. He is at a very difficult period of life. I know from old that the Minister has a deep feeling for and understanding of the problems of it. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and I have worked together for many years and there are two things I want to make quite clear. First, autism is not a “neurodisease”, autism is autism. Secondly, from my own experience, autistic people have the most brilliant minds when they have the opportunity to be cared for correctly. Will the Minister, as usual, throw everything behind what is needed to help autistic youngsters?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. His grandson has a good champion in him, and I hope he can understand that. The noble Lord makes a really important point. The employment rate for people with autism was 31%. If you compare that with disabled people across the board at 55%, it is not good. That shows the extent of the problem. We recognise that this is extremely serious. Nothing in the way this Government are going about this is trying in any way to minimise the challenges faced by people with autism.
I take the noble Lord’s point: autism is not a disease, but it is a different way of learning and looking. That is true of many neurodivergent conditions, and there are things that can be learned. We have pulled together a panel with different kinds of expertise, not to create some generalised view on what it feels like to not think in the way that some other people think but to enable us to look at all the evidence and work with employers to try to make a better place for everybody to go out there and work. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us a further assurance that when the Government use the term “neurodivergence”, it is a broad spectrum, and you cannot help somebody with neurodivergence? You might be able to help somebody with dyslexia, autism or dyscalculia, for instance. I remind the House of my interests. There have to be specific help pathways for those conditions. If we start trying to be too general, we will end up helping no one.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting some of the conditions. It may reassure him to know that the academic panel we have pulled together is looking at a number of specific neurodivergent conditions. Those include ADHD, autism spectrum condition—with the acknowledgments made—dyslexia and dyscalculia. They also include DCD—developmental co-ordination disorder, also known as dyspraxia—and developmental language disorder, among other conditions. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The job of the panel is to review what is known and then to look at what can help. There will be some things, some steps employers could take, which may be of benefit to people with more than one condition, but there are some that will be quite specific, and we need to understand the evidence before we can make good recommendations.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Touhig in his entire assessment of how different it is for autism and neurodivergent issues. I declare that I have an autistic son who is 44 years old. I just came back from a meeting chaired by Samantha Niblett MP on this specific subject of underemployment and employment of people with autism. I agree with the Minister that the gap is unacceptable, but what are the Government doing to ensure that job coaches, in particular those of the DWP, are attuned to their needs and directing them properly?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really good point. There are a number of different forms of support available to people with a range of disabilities or other conditions, if they come forward. Our job coaches have extensive training in a wide range of conditions to work with people who come in who need help, but there are also all kinds of schemes available. We can refer people to different kinds of help, to programmes where they can get voluntary support and work with whatever their particular needs are. We are trying to make our service out there increasingly tailored. There is not a generic range of barriers to employment. People often need quite specific understanding of what is getting in their way and help to overcome it. I hope that, in time, if the noble Baroness’s son ever comes to a jobcentre, he will find the help he needs, if, indeed, he needs it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I declare I have a great-nephew, Ollie, who is autistic and in a special school, and we love him to bits. Every grandparent, every parent, every great-aunt, worries about how their relative is going to get a job. I recently visited Project SEARCH run by the DFN Foundation, and I can tell the House that it has a 70% success rate of getting autistic young people into work, and 60% of them are in a full-time job. Are His Majesty’s Government going to set ambitious targets such as that, so that we get as many people into work as possible and they can lead productive lives? If the Minister would like a day out of the office, I will take her to Project SEARCH myself to see it in action.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Well, that is an offer I cannot refuse. When I used to work with families with children, there was a saying that every child deserves to have at least one adult unreasonably committed to their flourishing. In this House, I think those adults are particularly ever-present, and I can imagine that Ollie is not only being loved to bits but supported.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness. One of the challenges for us in supporting people who have disability barriers to work is that we have to have confidence that people can be supported and helped to get work, because if we do not believe they can, why should anyone else? If we do not believe it is possible, why should employers take a chance on people and why should individuals have confidence in themselves? We have seen great results with supported employment. Start where somebody is, look at the barriers, think about what they might be able to do and support them into it. Some people will be happy with supported employment. Either someone is at risk of falling out of a job or we can get them into it and, once they are in, can we help them to stay there? I would be delighted to go with the noble Baroness to visit that project but let us talk about this some more.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the danger that has been pointed out. If you move from the specific to the general, you often lose focus. But do we not have a broader problem? Millions of our fellow citizens are unemployed or underemployed. Meanwhile, we have a load of artificial barriers in not just the private sector but local and national government departments, about people’s conditions, previous criminal records, often from decades past, irrelevant qualifications and boxes being ticked—with employers therefore not looking at people’s potential. Is that not the broader issue and one that the Government need to take on, for individuals and the wider economy and wider society?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, those are excellent points. We want to help individuals see their own potential and help employers see the potential in everyone who comes in. I am answering questions today, but I am also the Minister in the DWP who is responsible for working with ex-prisoners, ex-offenders and people who have experience of homelessness. Similar patterns happen across the piece. Some of our programmes addressing people’s challenges if they have disabilities or health conditions are also available to people with other barriers, such as having been an offender or having been homeless. The first step is to help people overcome those. We do a lot of work in this space already. I have visited some fantastic programmes which have great success rates. We are committed to doing this. Let us all have confidence. People can achieve anything if someone gets behind them.
UK-US Trade
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further action they plan to take to protect and increase trade between the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, on Thursday 8 May we were delighted to announce the agreement of a landmark economic deal between the United Kingdom and the United States, making the UK the first country to get an agreement with President Trump. It was the second major trade announcement of the week, following the India free trade agreement on Tuesday 6 May. What we have agreed will provide the foundation for a new reciprocal trading partnership between the US and the UK and secure actions that will protect jobs across the country and protect British businesses.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, but after all the self-congratulation has faded away, is it not clear that this agreement is very far from being a comprehensive trade agreement of the type that ought to be possible in this post-Brexit world? Is it not the case that British firms are now worse off than they were before 2 April—so-called “liberation day”—because of the 10% tariff? Although it is welcome that the worst draconian tariffs have been reduced on motor cars, British firms are worse off than they were before. If the Government regard this as just a transition to a more effective, more comprehensive deal, is it not important that they give that priority and do away with thinking about dynamic alignment with the EU market?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is still a lot of work to be done. But having spent time with the many very capable and hard-working officials who have been part of this deal, it is worth acknowledging the hard work that has gone into this, which we are very appreciative of. The reality of this situation is that it has lifted some of the barriers to trade for many of our industries and some of the key sectors that we really value—for example, the automotive, steel and pharmaceutical industries. The noble Lord is right that there are still a lot of industries that have not been covered by the scope of this agreement. We are just starting on our journey, making sure that we can build on the strong trading relationship between the US and the UK and continue this approach of removing the onerous tariffs and supporting the people, industries and sectors supported by this.
The areas that have been covered by this agreement employ over 320,000 people within the UK, with a further 260,000 jobs within the UK supporting these sectors. Yes, it is just the first step in negotiating the fuller economic situation with the US, but I think the noble Lord will agree that it is a very powerful one.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that no matter how good a deal we do with America, Europe is our most important trading partner and the one that we should concentrate on and get the most out of?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that our trading relationship with the EU is incredibly important. I do not believe in the premise of false dichotomies or that we are picking between one and the other. This is a continuing relationship and dialogue. I note that there is a very important EU summit coming up in May, which should really endorse and build on our relationship with the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, if this is a first step, was the Minister not as confused as I was yesterday to hear our ambassador to the US say on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that this was a finalised agreement? There is no impact assessment that we have been presented with in Parliament, so when is that impact assessment going to be laid before Parliament? He also said that film and technology were included, but there is no reference to that within the text of the announcement last week of the framework to start negotiations. Is it the Government’s intent that this will not be laid as a treaty that would then be ratified by Parliament? If it is not, and it is not a preferential trade agreement, does the Minister agree that we will have to apply all the terms in this framework to all other countries under WTO rules?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
To clarify, a lot of key sectors are covered in this framework, and this framework is a final decision on how those key sectors will be treated when it comes to trading between the UK and the US. Those sectors are things such as automotive, steel and pharmaceuticals, but also beef and ethanol, which we have heard so much about. But they are not all the sectors where trade is a part of the UK-US relationship; it could be areas such as technology and how we think about the relationship with that. So yes, this is a final agreement for the sectors that have been covered, but it does not necessarily cover all the sectors. There is still work to be done to understand what those future trading relationships look like with respect to those other sectors.
With regard to how this will be treated within Parliament and whether it will be ratified as a treaty, forgive me—I could not comment on that specifically. I would very quickly run shallow of my parliamentary journey of knowledge, which is still at its earliest stages, but I will be sure to write to the noble Lord on the specifics.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests. Does the Minister believe that British agriculture’s profitability will be increased or diminished by this arrangement?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
What we see in this relationship with the US is an opportunity to think about the opportunity it presents to all our British industries and how we can open that up to best effect. When we think about farming, the key area of the trade in beef is a real opportunity here. For the first time, the US ban on importing British beef has been lifted, and 13,000 tonnes of British beef can now be exported to the US. That is a real advantage for UK farming.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is delightful to hear the Minister extolling the real opportunity that comes from a future deal with the United States. Last week I asked the Front Bench to confirm that none of this would be possible if we were still in the European Union. I was told that was a matter of opinion. Can the Minister confirm that this is a fact?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I will offer up that I agree that that would be a matter of opinion.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister, like me, fed up with the moaning coming from the Opposition? Does she agree that they had 14 years and did not negotiate any trade deal with the United States, so they are the last people who should be critical?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I would be very delicate about suggesting such a thing, but one of the things that we do really well within this nation is that, whichever side of the House we are sitting on, we all want to see the opportunity to trade and understand the value that it contributes to the UK economy. I think we can all agree that this is a really powerful first step that supports the great nation that we all operate within.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that one of the reasons we were unable to negotiate a trade deal with the EU was that we did not wish to introduce hormone-produced beef. If the animal is fed with hormones, it does not show up. How can she reassure the British consumer that we will not import any beef produced with any hormone whatever?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is an important point that we have been able to open up such trading opportunities while protecting our incredibly powerful and well-respected food standards. I am not necessarily familiar with the specifics of how we can detect whether those standards have been complied with, and I will endeavour to write to her to follow up on that matter.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I give some credit to the Government for signing a damage-limitation deal with the US, for that is what it is, but this five-page agreement does not actually constitute a legally binding document. Can the Minister confirm that, currently, it can be terminated at will by either side? If so, what longer-term assurances can the Minister offer to UK exporters, given the erratic nature of US trade policy?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
We are operating in incredibly fast-moving times. This agreement lays down those anchor points and principles to allow our great industries to be able to continue to trade, but there is more work to be done in fleshing out the specifics and making sure that this is enacted and is something that people can use day to day in their trade. Our brilliant team of officials are working very hard on ensuring that this gets done within the coming weeks.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Following on from the Minister’s last answer, can she say what steps the Government intend to take to address the continued imposition of the 10% baseline reciprocal tariffs on most UK goods entering the US?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
For the remaining areas of trade that are not covered by this agreement, where there still are reciprocal tariffs, there is a number of industries that we identify as key and there is an ongoing dialogue and conversation. It is important to note that this agreement is not an end. It is not a conclusion of all the conversations. Those negotiations are happening all the time, and we should anticipate seeing more agreements of this nature.
Doncaster Royal Infirmary
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the conditions at Doncaster Royal Infirmary on patient care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, Doncaster Royal Infirmary has a backlog maintenance bill of approximately £114 million, and serious infrastructure issues are indeed presenting challenges to delivering high-quality patient care. Repairing and rebuilding our healthcare estate is vital in creating an NHS fit for the future. South Yorkshire ICB has been provisionally allocated more than £150 million in capital investment for 2025-26 to begin to tackle estate challenges, including the condition of DRI.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for her Answer. She may be aware that one recent estimate of the costs involved in bringing the infrastructure of DRI into good repair came to an eye-watering £478 million. In 2021, a water ingress into the electrical circuits in the maternity ward caused the evacuation of premature babies in incubators and women in labour. In 2023, the collapse of a significant portion of plaster work in a hospital corridor ceiling resulted in no human injury only by the providence of God. How does the Minister intend to monitor the conditions at DRI to ensure that any future deterioration does not put the safety of patients and staff at risk?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very aware of the unacceptable situation that the right reverend Prelate describes. I can confirm that, in terms of capital commitments, in 2025-26 the Government are backing NHS systems with over £4 billion in operational capital, £750 million of targeted estate-safety funding, which will be crucial to DRI, as well as £440 million to tackle crumbling RAAC. Why is this all so important? It is all about keeping staff, patients and their families safe, and it is also about providing the best possible care. I should say that the Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which DRI comes under, is discussing—indeed, it absolutely should be discussing—options with the ICB to steer the programme allocations towards DRI.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, system allocation guidelines of January this year state that systems will receive at least 80% of their 2025-26 core operational capital in each year of this Parliament, relative to their 2024-25 allocation. With many hospital buildings in serious financial capital backlog, why have the Government put in a system that could see some areas’ day-to-day capital allocation cut by 20%?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can tell your Lordships’ House that we have inherited an undercapitalisation over the past few years, and it is essential—including to cut waiting lists and provide proper care—that we provide resources. However, the noble Lord is very aware of the extent of the backlog; it stands, according to the latest NHSE figures for 2022-23, at £13.8 billion. Even more worryingly, the critical infrastructure risk within that, which the highest-tier hospitals are wrestling with, is £7.6 billion. We have had to find the best route forward to be fair and efficient. Is it a major mountain to climb? Yes, it is. Are there various options for doing it? Yes, there are, but we believe that we have been as transparent and fair as we can be.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I know that Secretary of State Wes Streeting is determined to increase NHS productivity. DRI’s bid for urgent work to the tower block would do just that; for example, by stroke services having a same-day emergency care centre linked to the in-patient ward with a knock-on effect on vascular services. That is all impossible with the current state of the hospital. Will my noble friend the Minister ensure that Ministers, officials and, crucially, the Treasury not only are aware of the patient safety concerns raised by the right reverend Prelate, but know that the DRI bid will increase productivity and efficiency, as well as improve patient care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the effects of a poor estate. In addition to productivity, it very much affects safety, staff working conditions and capacity. The benefits are considerable, as she identifies—and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, identified. I assure my noble friend that we are working across government—including with the Treasury and, to the right reverend Prelate’s point, with the local ICB and trust—to tackle this. My noble friend is aware that this Government committed nearly £20 million from the critical infrastructure risk fund to the hospital’s NHS foundation to move a section to the ground floor—not the part to which my noble friend referred, but it shows the seriousness with which we are taking this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the injection of capital to Doncaster Royal Infirmary is welcome. When the CQC inspected DRI in 2024, it found that the hospital
“did not have enough maternity staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep women safe from avoidable harm”.
While the Government develop their 10-year and workforce plans, what action are they taking in the meantime to address safety concerns from a lack of adequate staffing in maternity services? While we are on the subject, given the recently announced crackdowns on immigration and that many people who work in our health and care system are immigrants, how do the Government intend to encourage more British workers to fill vacancies in health and social care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On that point, I feel that the Government taking the backlog very seriously, against the background of what we have inherited, will make conditions far better for staff, which will make it a far more attractive place to work. That will be reflected when we report on the workforce plan. To the point about maternity, we are recruiting extra midwives and we are looking extremely closely at how we can better support best practice—as I saw just last week—how we can extend that and how we can bring better patient safety measures into the system. I am afraid that it is another area that we inherited in a difficult position, but noble Lords can be assured that we are working on it. I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am going to come back at the Minister. I accept that the backlog is there. My question was: why have the Government put in a system that will reduce day-to-day capital expenditure, potentially by up to 20%, for some areas? That is this Government’s new plan. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the ICB in South Yorkshire has been allocated £150 million this year. It was allocated £161 million last year. How does this help Doncaster, Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley with their capital backlog?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that the noble Lord is, as I am, very keen to resolve this situation, but the fact is that DRI is in an extremely difficult place, which was the reason for the right reverend Prelate’s Question. To pursue the particular point he made, I will be very pleased to come back to him. However, I emphasise that the Autumn Budget made exceptional support for capitalisation, which is not just for the physical estate but also the digital estate. DRI has, for example, been updating patient records on paper. That is not the way forward and they will now be digitally brought up to date. On his particular point, I will be very pleased to look into it further and come back to him.
Schools: Mobile Phones
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure mobile phones are kept out of schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, mobile phones have no place in our schools. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. We expect all schools to take steps in line with this guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupils’ learning. If pupils fail to follow those rules, schools have the power to confiscate devices.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank the Minister for her optimistic Answer to my Question. I wonder how many noble Lords are at this very moment distracted by the smartphone that they have with them. I look around and I see quite a few. Imagine then what it must be like to be the teacher of a class of 11 year-olds and to try to hold their attention when they have their smartphones beside them.
The Minister has given an optimistic Answer and I had hoped for unanimity in this matter, because all the evidence, all the experts, agree, as I think the Minister has just agreed, that having a smartphone with them at all times causes harm, both educationally and socially, to children and young people. To bring about the change that is necessary, will the Minister show some leadership and agree to the amendment that my noble friends have submitted to the education Bill that is about to come to Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, my optimism is based not just on vain hope but, of course, on the most recent report from the Children’s Commissioner, which shows that the overwhelming majority of schools—99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools—already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. There is ample opportunity, through both the guidance and the autonomy and wisdom of head teachers, to ensure that we make considerable progress on this issue, as we have already seen.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, school leaders, public health, Dan Tomlinson MP and the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign have come together in Barnet to become the first borough to ban smartphones in 103 primary schools, and 23 secondary schools are working towards removing smartphones entirely from the school day. This is ensuring that 63,000 students will enjoy a seven-hour window to learn, socialise and grow without a mobile phone. What assessment has my noble friend the Minister made of local initiatives such as this one in Barnet that we also find in areas such as Ealing and St Albans?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend identifies an important development, which is that, although schools can and do control the availability of mobile phones for children, children’s access to phones is much broader than that, and the support for children to be able to operate without their phones also needs a broader range of people than simply teachers and head teachers. That type of initiative demonstrates what is already happening under the current guidance. When people come together in that way to support each other, it is something to be recognised and on which they should be congratulated.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher, I have never taught in a school that allowed mobile phones. The Minister said that mobile phones had no place in schools, while giving head teachers autonomy to make decisions. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is taking away autonomy from head teachers. Is it not time we just had a blanket ban on mobile phones?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point about those who argue that autonomy for head teachers is important—which the Government support. By the way, I dispute his interpretation of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss in more detail over the coming weeks. It is precisely those who make that charge who now want to remove that autonomy by saying that legislation is the only way to make progress.
Lord Storey (LD)
I agree with what the Minister has said. One of the problems with mobile phones is to do with children’s mental health and well-being—and, of course, bullying. Mobile phones are often used to bully pupils. Does the Minister agree that it is important that governing bodies of schools, on which parents are represented, understand the issues and are able to discuss them and come to some conclusions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I am sure that both the policies that schools are developing and have developed on mobile phone use, and the policies that they are required to have in place around bullying, for example, will benefit from well-informed governors, and input from parents and others on governing bodies, to make sure that they are effective and respond to some of the challenges that the use of mobile phone technology has brought.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister rightly cites some of the evidence in this area, but I think it is becoming overwhelming. The Children’s Commissioner is right about the number of schools that have policies in this area. The question is: are they effective? The evidence from Parentkind and Policy Exchange is that only 10% to 15% of schools have a really effective ban on phones. The department’s own evidence shows that 50% of GCSE classes are disrupted by the use of phones, and we are hearing increasing evidence from healthcare professionals about the impact on our children. The Minister rightly says that we on this side of the House uphold autonomy in our schools and academy trusts, but this is about a precautionary principle, and protecting our children. What is stopping the Minister from moving on it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness identifies the need for all of us to continue thinking about the best practice for schools to ensure that their classrooms are mobile phone free, and that they are working on the best evidence. There is a whole range of ways in which schools are responding to this, and it would be good for them to look at the very best practice across schools that are taking action. However, I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s point was that this is difficult and nuanced, that people are doing it in different ways, and that we need detailed consideration of how to do it best. None of those things would be delivered by a—I hate, in this place, to call legislation crude, but none of them would be delivered simply by legislating for something that, as she identified, is more complex than that.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, sometimes technology can help to deal with social problems. As a Faraday cage blocks phone signals, it would be appropriate to install those cages in all classrooms and prevent pupils being distracted by mobile phones. Will the Minister experiment with this technology?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that some schools already use that technology, along with a range of other technologies, such as keeping mobile phones in special bags that prevent them being used. Schools are making progress on this in a whole range of ways. The noble Lord is right that technology can sometimes be the answer to problems caused by other forms of technology.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise, however, that there may be reasonable exceptions to this, according to the particular circumstances of the student, which may or may not be temporary?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, and that is one of the reasons why there needs to be some flexibility. I think the noble Earl might be referring to children who, for particular reasons related to the distance they have to travel to school or perhaps to special needs that they have, might well need to have adjustments that can be provided for them by a mobile phone. Those are circumstances in which schools should be, and are, thinking about the particular ways in which they think about the ban, to ensure that all children can achieve and have the support that they need.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, France has seen an improvement in school results and less bullying in schools since it introduced a national ban in 2018, seven years ago. Is it not time that we followed that example and had a national ban, as opposed to guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What both the previous Government and this Government have done amounts to rather more than simply guidance; there has been a very clear direction. But I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that the French education system is somewhat more directive than the British education system. If she and her party want us to go down that route, that is an interesting development—but I do not think that is what she and her party want to happen.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the detailed and meaningful scrutiny of this Bill. Although it is, obviously, not possible for me to thank everyone who contributed to the Bill individually, which I hope Members will understand, there are a few specific thank-yous. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their co-operation and efforts to improve the Bill. I very much appreciated the constructive way in which His Majesty’s Opposition contributed. If she could pass that on to the noble Earl, I would be very grateful.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of the Liberal Democrats for her discussions and contributions, which were very much appreciated. I thank all Back-Benchers who contributed, my private office and officials, the Public Bill Office and various other officials of the House, the current ombudsman and the German commissioner, whose example we have used. I express my thanks and gratitude for everyone’s hard work.
Finally, as a number of noble Lords will know first-hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for their service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe. We owe our serving personnel and their families a commissioner with a single mission; namely, to improve service life. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the Bill. In particular, it is appropriate at this time to welcome the role of the commissioner but also to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson. At various stages of the Bill, we talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues that the commissioner would look into. One set would be LGBT+ service personnel, and at this stage, I pay tribute to the late Lord Etherton for the work that he put in to reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming Armed Forces commissioner, once this legislation passes, will not have to look at such difficult situations in the future. Again, I thank the Minister; I thank the Liberal Democrat Whip’s Office, including Mohamed-Ali Souidi, and wish the Bill well.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that it is in order to take 60 seconds to thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself throughout the Bill. From the very beginning, it was clear that Members interested were invited to understand the nature of the Bill. I very much hope it will make a difference, but it is a very good Bill—and the fact that I grew to have a personal interest in it is neither here nor there. This is a very good step forward, and I wish it well.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank him for the constructive manner in which he has approached the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition have welcomed the Bill from the beginning, and it has been a privilege to participate in its passage through this House.
Not only will the creation of the commissioner strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating the investigation of wider welfare issues but I hope it will bolster the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice of independence for them. Any steps we can take to improve the offering to our service men and women we should vigorously pursue.
In that regard, I endeavoured to bolster the Bill by introducing a new duty on the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment on Report. I particularly appreciated the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, my noble friend Lord Wrottesley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and thank them for their words of support and encouragement and for delivering that support in a meaningful form in the Division Lobby. The resounding message your Lordships’ House sent to our Armed Forces personnel, especially service women who feel that their voices have not been heard, is that we are on your side. As this Bill now goes back to the other place, I entreat the Government to reflect carefully on how they address my amendment. This is not a time for ambivalence and uncertainty; it is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the Government will accept, as this House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the Bill.
Finally, I thank Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet me and my noble friend Lord Minto. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been exemplary throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that whoever the Government appoint as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It is a high bar, and much work has still to be done, but I look forward to continuing to scrutinise the Government’s efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our Armed Forces personnel and I wish the Government well in the creation of this new office.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their short contributions. I have made one catastrophic error: I forgot to thank the Whips’ Office. I hastily put that on the record.
On a more serious note, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith in her tribute to Lord Etherton. I am sure that there will be another time for us all to reflect more broadly, but she is perfectly right to point out the sad loss of Lord Etherton to this House and the contribution that he made to LGBT as well as more generally on a whole range of things.
I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, once again, on the forthcoming wedding that is happening—not his, I hasten to add. I look forward to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is right to point out that the whole point of the commissioner, and the success of the role, will be on how much we can generate trust and confidence in people to come forward should they be subject to inappropriate behaviour. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will, of course, consider carefully how we respond to the amendment that was passed in your Lordships’ House. With those few brief comments, I thank everyone again.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendment 2. I would like to thank noble Lords for their continued interest and engagement in this important legislation. I know that some noble Lords will be disappointed to see the other place overturn the amendment inserted by your Lordships’ House, relating to the scope of the new mechanism, but I hope that I can offer some reassurance today on this matter.
As noble Lords will know, this Bill is intended to enhance the toolkit that the Bank of England has to manage the failure of a banking institution. In particular, it seeks to provide a new source of funding to cover certain costs associated with resolution and, in doing so, to strengthen the protections for the taxpayer, given the importance of protecting public funds in the event that a bank fails.
That said, I do understand the concerns that noble Lords have about any potential costs that would be placed on the banking sector if the Bill’s mechanism were used to support the resolution of some of the largest banks. Here, I would reiterate that it is the Government’s strong expectation that this mechanism would not be used to support the failure of the largest firms.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government published draft updates to its code of practice in October last year, which contained important language clarifying this expectation. I also met with many noble Lords in person during the Bill’s passage to listen carefully to concerns and to seek to explain the Government’s views on this matter.
Ultimately, the other place has taken the view that the scope of the mechanism should not be limited. The Government continue to believe that it is important to retain some flexibility for the Bank of England. I would like to make three further points to help explain that position.
First, as I have mentioned, the Government published draft updates to the code of practice to clarify our expectation that the Bank of England would bail in all readily available MREL that a bank holds, on top of the regulatory capital that must be bailed in, before using this mechanism. The Government therefore envisage that the mechanism would only be used on larger banks as a backstop, and any funds required would be only a top up to these other sources of recapitalisation.
Secondly, allowing the Bank of England the option of using the recapitalisation mechanism on larger banks means that it will be more able to respond to unexpected factors when resolving a bank. While of course the Bank of England works hard to ensure that it is fully prepared for a failure scenario, the manner in which banks fail is always highly uncertain. It is therefore important to ensure that the Bill is not overly restrictive in curtailing the Bank’s ability to use the mechanism flexibly.
As we have discussed in previous debates, there are some circumstances where retaining that flexibility could help to protect public funds. Although unlikely, there are circumstances in which larger banks may not be sufficiently capitalised to self-insure against their own failure, even if the bank in question has been directed to maintain end-state MREL requirements. An example of that might be if the firm was subject to a large redress claim, resulting in larger recapitalisation requirements than envisaged. Similarly, changes in the market value of the firm’s assets over time could result in higher losses than expected at the point of failure, again resulting in higher recapitalisation requirements to manage the failure of the firm in question.
While unlikely, those examples demonstrate a clear benefit in having the flexibility to source additional resources from the mechanism, having already written down the firm’s available MREL. Restricting the scope of the Bill would prevent the mechanism from being available in such scenarios, leaving public funds and therefore the taxpayer exposed instead. The Government therefore consider the theoretical possibility of using the recapitalisation mechanism on a larger bank a prudent step, providing comprehensive protection for public funds.
Thirdly, any levying by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover funds provided to the Bank of England will be subject to an affordability cap set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is currently £1.5 billion per year. In line with its safety and soundness objective, the PRA carefully considers the affordability of the FSCS levy for firms, providing an important safeguard against the sector being hit by unaffordable levies to prop up the largest firms.
I hope those points will go some way to reassuring noble Lords, and that they will be able to support the Bill as it now stands. Noble Lords will note that Amendment 2 is a straightforward amendment to remove the financial privilege amendment that was inserted by this House at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question that arises from this change. First, though, it is over six months since we debated these amendments. That does seem like an awfully long time for the Bill to disappear into limbo and come back, particularly when other Bills are being rushed through this House.
I wanted to ask the Minister to explain more about whether the resolution process could be used for larger banks, but I think he has actually answered that question. I am not sure his answer gives me an awful lot more confidence or comfort, but I am not going to oppose the Commons amendments. However, in the last six months, various comments have come from the PRA or the Bank of England about the fact that this Act, as it will be, may allow them to take some banks out of the MREL process. I wondered if the Minister might wish to comment on that and whether there are any consequences the other way round.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have to say that I appreciate the explanation that we have just had from the Minister, but I and others remain disturbed by the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment, which was not just rational but well crafted, introduced by your Lordships in this House. The underlying Bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save significant small banks from failing by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as this House will know, are then required to replenish the FSCS when it is depleted for any reason, but, because the thrust of the language was around small banks—that was the intent, and that was the discussion that is in all the notes—this House very much agreed to it, with just a few probing points engaged with.
Thank goodness that we have a lot of very good brains in this House. The combination of my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Fox and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, realised that there was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning that any of this could be applied to the larger banks; that became clear only as those pursuing the legislation became more aware of the implications of its content. Now we have a Bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as its mechanism to rescue large banks. Let us be frank: it completely changes the whole profile of both risks and consequences. The amendment would have effectively closed that loophole.
The larger banks, as the Minister has said, already have their own dedicated process to recapitalise in case of failure, a process that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold a tranche of MREL—in plain English, bail-in bonds—which can be converted to capital by the regulator in case of failure, with the consequence that the bank is thereby rescued. We need to understand why that is not considered by the Government to be an adequate system. The Minister has just said—if I understood him—that the regulators will always require that bail-in bonds are used first, and the FSCS is a resource of last resort. But that is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn first to the FSCS and ignore bail-in altogether. He will be very conscious that the Swiss regulator, with the failure of Credit Suisse, completely ignored the bail-in capability and chose other routes to manage the rescue of Credit Suisse.
Those who hold bail-in bonds—the investors who buy them—are extremely well remunerated for carrying the risk associated with a bail-in bond. I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefits of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds but never actually find that those bonds are forced into use in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code to continue to determine that bail-in will be the first resort and not a later resort or no resort at all? Are the Government basically saying that there are now many circumstances they have identified in which bail-in is neither usable nor adequate? I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences for financial sustainability if we are saying that bail-in is a slightly busted system? Have there been blandishments from the various investors who have purchased bail-in bonds, trying to pressure the Government into creating an alternate route? What are the consequences for our small- and medium-sized banks if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure?
The Minister says that the regulators will not ask for an unaffordable contribution from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is our mechanism that ensures small depositors’ accounts. Who is going to do the replenishment if the number is too great to ask the banks to commit to it? I am quite troubled by this change in responsibility for where risk lies that is embedded in the Bill. If the Minister is so sure that the items in the code should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced in this Bill as part of the legislation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is an important Bill, which provides the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly those of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. It reflects proposals by the last Government in the light of experience with the demise of Silicon Valley Bank. As such, it had cross-party support and, starting in the Lords, was a good example of expert scrutiny across the House.
Special thanks go to my noble friend and predecessor Lady Vere, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Eatwell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, officials on all sides—of course, not forgetting the Whips—and, above all, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I thank him both for the government amendments, notably that which was made to Clause 3 on the involvement of the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he has already mentioned.
Banking and financial services are very important to the success of the British economy. In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of around £27 trillion and in 2023 the financial insurance services sector contributed £208 billion to the UK economy. Legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness and be easy to navigate and use. They must also balance ambition with prudence—an understandable driver of the Bill.
Noble Lords will recall the amendment we successfully added that was championed by my noble friend Lady Vere. This sought to prohibit the use of the funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which had reached an end-state MREL. The object was to reflect in law the Government’s stated objective of using the resolution framework in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention, thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks that have achieved end-state MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an ex-post levy of the banking sector through the FSCS in times of trouble. Resources should be focused on the SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reiterated.
In view of this, I am joined by noble Lords across the House in expressing disappointment that Members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the Bill. We are confident that it would have improved the Bill in meeting its objective and helped to embed the balance I spoke of. However, we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support in the other place, wish to maintain flexibility; for example, as the Minister explained, to deal with a large, unexpected redress claim leaving the taxpayer exposed, although this is very much a backstop arrangement, with a £1.5 billion cap, as the Minister confirmed. So I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again.
It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues in the other place in good faith. Regardless, I hope the Government will consider these proposals seriously as we try together to create a system which is balanced and simple and promotes growth—an objective that the Minister and I share.
We support the thrust of the Bill, which continues the work that we did in government to support our banking sector, protect consumers and safeguard the public finances. However, there are still outstanding questions which I hope the Government can address today or in writing. They are even more important now that the Vere amendment has been rejected.
The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority have proposed an FSCS operating budget for 2025-26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FSCS’s administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation payouts. Over the three financial years from 2021 to 2024, the FSCS paid just £10 million in compensation relating to deposit claims, due primarily to the defaults of 11 credit unions and one small bank. Will the Minister kindly outline the steps the Government are taking to minimise the operating costs of the FSCS?
The FSCS is a quango, which is overseen by a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses an industry funding model does not change this. The money in its operating budget is money that is not being utilised in the banking sector, which employs millions of people and contributes billions to our economy and to growth. Does the Minister agree that the FSCS should focus on efficiency and on keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in its operating budget and that, like other regulators, it should have regard to the Government’s overall objective of growth?
I end by saying that this is a broadly sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances, ensure the security of our financial sector and limit public risk. We will support the Government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of the Bill, but I hope the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and will take the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill since July last year, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate today. I am also grateful to all three noble Lords for indicating that they will not oppose the Bill further. I will briefly attempt to respond to the questions and points made in this brief debate.
First, I reiterate what the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, said about the expertise in this House; I was on the receiving end of much of that expertise and it certainly tested me. However, to a large extent, the Bill was improved by the debates we had in this House, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, talked about the gap between Third Reading and us returning today for this ping-pong session. It is somewhat out of my hands, although I do agree that it feels like rather a long time since we last debated these issues. He asked about the circumstances in which this power will be used, and I hope, as he said, that I covered that in my opening speech. He also raised some other questions.
On MRELs, the Bank of England sets MREL requirements independently of government, as he knows, but within a framework as set out in legislation. The Bank of England has consulted on proposals which seek to ensure that the MREL regime remains proportionate and evolves over time. The Government are engaging closely with the Bank of England as it considers its responses to that consultation, and its engagement includes consideration of the impacts on economic growth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about MREL being used as the first resort. The Government believe there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that shareholders and creditors are exposed to losses before the new mechanism is used. These include the principle in legislation requiring the Bank of England to ensure that shareholders and creditors bear losses when a banking institution fails. As set out in the draft updates to the code of practice, the Bank of England would first look to write down or otherwise expose to loss all readily available MREL resources before requiring a recapitalisation payment from the FSCS. Noting these points, the Government believe that specifying the extent of losses that must be imposed before the new mechanism is used would be an unnecessary restriction on the Bank of England’s flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the FCSC budget and minimising operating costs. It is in fact a legal duty on it to minimise those costs, and I would expect it to adhere to that legal duty. The noble Baroness also spoke about the importance of financial services to the growth of the UK economy, on which I very much agree with her.
The Bill plays a vital role in upgrading the UK’s toolkit to manage bank failures, strengthening protections for taxpayers and financial stability which are, in turn, key to the Government’s number one priority of economic growth. I look forward to the Bill’s enactment and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the amendments made in the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Livermore
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:14 - Division on Motion 32A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 32) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 183 - Motion 32A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 32) agreed.
17:28 - Division on Motion 43A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 43) - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 168 - Motion 43A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 32) agreed.
19:24 - Division on Motion 49A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 49) - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 125 - Motion 49A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 49) agreed.
19:37 - Division on Motion 52A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 52) - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 152 - Motion 52A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 52) agreed.
Lord Vallance of Balham
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to some of the amendments made in the other place, starting with Amendments 1 to 31. These will ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally and that Part 1 is as clear as possible. Similarly, Amendments 35 to 42 from the other place reflect discussions on the national underground asset register with the devolved Governments. Finally, Amendments 70 to 79 make necessary consequential updates to the final provisions of the Bill and some updates to Schedules 11 and 15.
I will now speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, starting with those relating to sex data. Motion 32A disagrees with the amendment to remove Clause 28(3) and (4), and instead proposes changes to the initial drafting of those subsections. These would require the Secretary of State, when preparing the trust framework, to assess whether the 15 specified public authorities can reliably ascertain the data they collect, record and share. Amendment 32B limits this assessment to sex data, as defined through Amendment 32C; that definition limits sex to biological sex only and provides a definition of acquired gender.
It is also relevant to speak now to Motion 52A, which disagrees with the amendment to remove Clause 140 and, instead, suggests changes to the drafting. Clause 140, as amended by Amendment 52B, seeks to, through a regulation-making power, give the Secretary of State the ability to define sex as being only biological sex in certain areas or across public sector data processing more widely. Let me be clear that this Government accept the recent Supreme Court judgment on the definition of sex for the purposes of equality legislation. We need to work through the effects of this ruling holistically and with care, sensitivity and—dare I say it—kindness. In line with the law, we need to take care not to inappropriately extend its reach. This is not best done by giving the Secretary of State the power to define sex as biological in all cases through secondary legislation without appropriate scrutiny, given the potential impact on people’s human rights, privacy and dignity, and the potential to create legal uncertainty. Likewise, giving the Secretary of State a role in reviewing how other public authorities process sex data in all circumstances based on that definition would be inappropriate and disproportionate, and I note that the Supreme Court’s ruling relates specifically to the meaning of sex in equalities legislation.
The driver behind these amendments has been the importance of sex data being accurate when processed by public authorities. I strongly agree with that aim: accurate data is essential. This Government take data accuracy—including the existing legislation that requires personal data to be accurate—and data standards seriously. That is why we are addressing the question of sex information in public sector data. First, the EHRC is updating its statutory code of practice to support service providers in light of the Supreme Court judgment. Secondly, the Data Standards Authority is developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex and gender data, and the effect of the Supreme Court judgment will be considered as part of that work.
Thirdly, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity data last year. Fourthly, the Office for National Statistics published a work plan in December 2024 for developing harmonised standards on data more generally. Finally, the department is currently considering the implementation of the Sullivan review, published this year, which I welcome.
On digital verification services, I reassure noble Lords that these measures do not change the evidence that individuals rely on to prove things about themselves. The measures simply enable that to be done digitally. This Government are clear that data must be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used and must not be misleading. It should be clear to digital verification services what the information public authorities are sharing with them means. I will give an important example. If an organisation needs to know a person’s biological sex, this Government are clear that a check cannot be made against passport data, as it does not capture biological sex. DVS could only verify biological sex using data that records that attribute specifically, not data that records sex or gender more widely.
I know this is a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I hope this provides some reassurance. The data accuracy principle of GDPR is part of existing law. That includes where data is misleading—this is a point I will return to. I hope that noble Lords find this commitment reassuring and, as such, will agree with Commons Amendment 32.
Motion 34A on Amendments 34B and 34C address the security of the national underground asset register. Security has always been at the heart of the national underground asset register. We have therefore listened to the well-thought-through concerns that prompted the amendment previously tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, regarding cybersecurity. Following consideration, the Government are instead proposing an amendment we have drafted with support of colleagues in the security services. We believe this addresses the intention of ensuring the security of the national underground asset register data, with three key improvements.
First, it broadens the scope from cybersecurity only to the general security of information kept in or obtained from the national underground asset register. This will ensure that front-end users have guidance on a range of measures for security good practice—for example, personnel vetting, which should be considered for implementation—while avoiding the need to publish NUAR-specific cybersecurity features that should not be in the public domain. Secondly, it specifies the audience for this guidance; namely, users accessing NUAR. Finally, it broadens the scope of the amendment to include Northern Ireland alongside England and Wales, consistent with the NUAR measures overall. Clearly, it remains the case that access to NUAR data can be approved for purposes only by eligible users, with all access controlled and auditable. As such, I hope that noble Lords will be content to support government Motion 34A and Amendments 34B and 34C.
Commons Amendment 43, made in the other place, on scientific research removes the public interest test inserted in the definition of scientific research by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. While recognising the concern the noble Lord raises, I want to be clear that anything that does not count as scientific research now would not do so under the Bill. Indeed, we have tightened the requirement and added a reasonableness test. The Bill contains strong safeguards. Adding precise definitions in the Bill would not strengthen these protections but impose a significant, new legal obligation on our research community at a time when, in line with the good work of the previous Government, we are trying to reduce bureaucracy for researchers, not increase it with new processes. The test proposed will lead to burgeoning bureaucracy and damage our world-leading research. This disproportionate step would chill basic and curiosity-driven research, and is not one we can support.
I beg to move that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. I have spoken to the other amendments.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his—as ever—clear and compelling remarks. I thank all noble Lords who have been working in a collegiate, collaborative fashion to find a way forward on the few but important remaining points of disagreement with the Government.
Before I come to the issue of accurate recording of personal data, I also thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling the government amendments on the national underground asset register and her constructive engagement throughout the progress of the Bill.
As noble Lords will recall, I set out our case for stronger statutory measures to require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to relevant stakeholders on the cybersecurity measures that should be in place before they receive information from the national underground asset register. I am of course delighted that the Government have responded to the arguments that we and others made and have now tabled their own version of my amendment which would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the security of this data. We are happy to support them in that.
I turn to Motions 32A and 52A standing in my name, which seek to ensure that data is recorded accurately. They amend the original amendment, which my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot took through your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Lucas is sadly unable to attend the House today, but I am delighted to bring these Motions forward from the Opposition Front Bench. In the other place, the Conservative Front Bench tabled new Clause 21, which would, we feel, have delivered a conclusive resolution to the problem. Sadly, the Government resisted that amendment, and we are now limited by the scope of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lucas, so we were unable to retable the, in my view, excellent amendment in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is right that it is essential that data collected needs to be accurate and that that applies to data on sex as well as on gender. He is also right that the passport does not contain reliable data on sex, and I am grateful to him for making that clear. I am also grateful to him for the discussions that he has had with me and for the discussion that the Secretary of State had with Sex Matters and me, but what is the solution to this? In the absence of any reliable document, how is a care home to ensure that a person who is to provide intimate care for an elderly woman, who has understandably demanded that such care be provided by a woman, will actually be provided by a woman?
In the absence of anything else, I suspect a care home will have to fall back on the passport, which, as we have all agreed, is unreliable. My noble friend’s amendment goes some way towards answering this, and I shall support it. It may have flaws. The Minister said in one of our meetings that it would invalidate our existing passports. I am not sure about that but, if it is right, can the Minister propose a minor amendment to my noble friend’s amendment to sort out that problem?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I too will speak to Motion 32A. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his confirmation of the Government’s welcome of the Supreme Court ruling and his welcome of the Sullivan report. I also very much welcome the words that he has used today and thank him for the discussions that we have been able to have.
Can he confirm that where the Equality Act allows for a women-only space, any digital IT system used for that purpose would refer to biological sex as the relevant information? With regard to public authorities, I assume that organisations such as Sport England and the GMC are counted as public authorities because they are statutory. At the moment the GMC does not record the biological sex of doctors, only the gender. When that also goes digital, will it be confined to biological sex so that, again, patients can know the sex of their physician, assuming that it will be digital? I think that the Minister understands the questions I am posing and that his wording does give that reassurance, but any clarity would be welcome.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I stand in support of my Motion 43A. I welcome so much of this Bill. I want this country to be a champion of technology and hope that it becomes a tech powerhouse, attracting hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of investment in the development of AI. I understand the concerns expressed by the Minister, but I am still pressing ahead with this amendment because I want the people of this country to have control of their data and how it is used.
This amendment is a push-back against the way the AI companies have been abusing the use of people’s data in training their AI models. Last year, Meta reused data from Instagram users without their consent to train up its Llama AI model. Once this was discovered, there was a huge outcry from the owners of the data and an appeal to the ICO. As a result, Meta stopped the processing and the ICO said,
“it is crucial that the public can trust that their privacy rights will be respected from the outset”.
I want to make sure that when the Bill becomes law, it reassures the people of this country that they can trust the new technology. The battle to stop the abuse of data is a central concern of my indomitable noble friend Lady Kidron, who is sitting beside me and whose amendment is in the next group. It responds to the theft of copyright belonging to millions of creatives, including authors and artists, by AI companies. As it stands, Clause 67 gives a powerful exemption, allowing AI companies to reuse data without consent if they can show that their work aligns with the definition of “scientific research” set out in the Bill. I fear that this definition is so widely drawn that it will allow AI models to reuse data without consent, claiming that they are carrying out scientific research when in fact they are using it for product development and their own profit.
I thank the Ada Lovelace Institute for its constant support throughout the lengthy progress of this Bill. I expressed my concern in Committee and on Report. Chi Onwurah, the very respected chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the other place, tabled a similar amendment. However, despite meetings with Ministers, they have offered nothing to assuage our concerns, which has forced me to push this amendment at this stage.
Proposed new paragraph 2A inserted by this amendment would tighten the definition of what counts as scientific research. It is taken from the Frascati manual, developed by the OECD in order to compare R&D efforts made by different companies and identify what key features underpin them. The Government support the Frascati definition. In Committee, the Minister said the research test set out in the Bill “will not operate alone”, and will
“be in the context of the Frascati definition and the ICO’s guidance”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1637.]
He said that the Frascati definitions are merely guidance and that codification would bring burdens on scientific researchers, but this is not a new requirement: it is simply a codification of an existing standard set up by the ICO.
The central feature of this part of the amendment is that scientific research should increase the stock of human knowledge. The Minister has told your Lordships that not all scientific research will be new knowledge, that scientific research is often refuted or confirms previous findings, and that some scientific research will fail. But if there is refutation or confirmation of an experiment, that is an extension of human knowledge. Even if research fails, the researcher will know that the experiment does not work, and that is new knowledge. The requirement for scientific research to increase the stock of knowledge is a sensible precaution to preserve our data from abuse, and it will weed out the tech companies piggybacking on the clause for their own profit.
The purpose of this amendment is not just to tighten the definition. It is also to make sure that researchers have to consider it when they start to deploy the exemption for the reuse of data. The Minister has said it will lead to undue burden on scientists and stop research going ahead, but this definition is already being used by the ICO. The problem for a person whose data is being abused is that at the moment, if they want to appeal against its use without consent, they have to go to the ICO, which then has to apply the Frascati definition.
The ICO’s latest statistics show that only 12% of data protection complaints are dealt with within 90 days, compared with the target of 80%. Surely that means it is too late for the appeal against reuse of data without consent. The data will already have been absorbed into the AI training model and, as we have been continually told, it is hard for AI researchers to identify data once it is included in part of the model.
Proposed new paragraph 2A inserted by this amendment would stop this happening. By our putting a definition in the Bill, the AI researchers would have to consider it before reusing the data for their model, therefore saving data subjects having to appeal to the ICO if they are concerned about abuse.
Proposed new paragraph 2B inserted by this amendment responds to the Government’s claim that the “reasonably described” test in this clause is a tightening of the definition of scientific research. Over 14 of our leading law companies have looked at the Government’s test as set out in the Bill and described it variously as loosening, expanding or broadening the definition. However, Clause 67 asks the question whether the research can be reasonably described as scientific. The ICO or the courts will have to consider whether it is irrational to call this scientific research, but it is very hard to prove irrationality; it is a high bar.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the use of the usual reasonableness test asks, “Would a reasonable person conducting scientific research perform this activity in this manner?”. This test evaluates actual conduct against an objective standard of what constitutes proper scientific research.
The amendment seeks to realise what is already a requirement: that such research be conducted in line with standards based on the UK Research and Innovation Code of Practice for Research. It would ensure transparency for the use of scientific research. I am sure that during the course of the debate we will hear from scientists who will say that this debate will stifle research and stop new researchers undertaking work. However, this requirement is minimal, and the information required is that which researchers should already have to hand.
What I ask your Lordships to bear in mind when voting is that this amendment would give transparency into how people’s data is being reused. The new tests laid out in my amendment would be a powerful weapon in the fight against the abuse of people’s data. I want the new technologies to be successful, but they will be successful only if they have the trust of the people of the country. If people think that the Government have caved in to tech companies and allowed them to pillage our data for their own financial gain rather than for the progress of human knowledge, most will be outraged. I ask the Minister to assuage these fears and ensure that the Bill provides data in the people’s interests. Meanwhile, I will ask the opinion of the House at the end of this debate.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am a latecomer to this debate; I have not participated heretofore. I am doing so only because of conversations I had over the weekend. They related to the amendment from my noble friend under Motion 32A. I am not going to oppose my noble friend’s amendment—it may well be right—but I do want to express my anxieties because they were anxieties expressed by my friend who came to see me.
On the judgment of the Supreme Court, I am pretty much in favour of it. I think it was wholly right and I am very glad that the Government are accepting its finality, but it raises problems which I do not think have yet been fully considered, and that is what makes me reluctant to support my noble friend. The friend who came to see me is someone who I have known for a number of years and was born a male. In fact, she married and had a child, and she then transitioned—and transitioned fully—to the female gender and she is fully certificated. We discussed the implications of the judgement for her, and although I strongly support the judgment of the Supreme Court, a number of the points that she made were very troubling, most particularly as regards people who have not fully transitioned and how they are going to be dealt with; for example, in prisons, in hospital wards and so forth.
She then came to a very specific point—which has been touched on by a number of your Lordships—regarding passports. This is a woman whom I have known for 10 or so years. In every material respect, she passes as a woman and that is what I have always treated her as being; she is a friend of mine. Her passport at the moment shows “female”, but where there is the requirement “sex”, she is deeply concerned that the passport may have to be altered to state “male” because that is her natal gender. She raises the question very clearly as to what happens when she goes to immigration control or passport control, either in this country or somewhere else, where there will be a manifest divergence of appearance. On the one hand, there is the passport, which says that she is male; on the other hand, there is what she appears for all purposes. The point that I took away from that is that there are still lots of things that we are going to have to address.
My suggestion to your Lordships’ House is that we should set up a Select Committee in due time—and this House is well versed to do that—to consider what the implications of the Supreme Court judgment are across a broad spectrum of consideration. Therefore, returning to Motion 32A, if my noble friend will forgive me, I am not going to support him today, not because I think he is wrong but because I think it is premature to come to statutory interventions when there is still a lot to be considered. I would be fearful that, if this House accepted my noble friend’s amendments—and they may be right—they would be treated as a precedent that it is at least conceivable we would come to regret.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if I could go back to the wording proposed under Motion 52A. The whole purpose of it is limited. From a very practical and basic point of view, once the Supreme Court has told us that biological sex is to rule, the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, makes, which I entirely understand and sympathise with, really do not arise in this issue. If we are to have data, the data must be accurate. The only point that I am asking your Lordships’ House to consider—this is what the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, is asking—is:
“For the purposes of this section, sex data must be collected in accordance with the following category terms and definitions”.
That seems eminently sensible. If we do not have it, I see real problems of a different sort from those that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has raised.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Motions 32A and 52A which, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, appear eminently sensible.
The Minister—to whom I am also grateful for the meeting that I was able to join—assured us that we can trust the digital verification services because they will be based on the data accuracy principle of the GDPR, but that principle has been in place for a decade during which, as Professor Alice Sullivan recounted in her important report that the Minister welcomed earlier, statistics have become utterly muddled and confused. That is particularly so in this area, because sex and gender identity have been collected and conflated in a single data field such that the meaning of sex has been obscured.
I welcome the Minister’s support for the Supreme Court judgment, but, as he said, that judgment confirmed that sex in the Equality Act can only mean and has only ever meant biological sex. However, that has been the case for 15 years, during which all this muddle has taken place. The Minister tells us that we can trust the Government to respect the judgment and to reject the amendments but, before considering that, can he answer a few questions?
First, why is it not appropriate to ensure that in this Bill, on data use and access and which specifically talks about a digital verification system, unreliable datasets are not used for digital verification? If it is not in this timely data legislation, then when? The Minister referred to the forthcoming Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, but I suggest that we do not have to wait for that guidance in this area. We have this Bill, this vehicle, and it is surely appropriate to enshrine everything that the Minister said in this legislation.
Secondly, have the Government considered how the digital verification system will work with regard to an estimated 100,000 people who have a different record for their sex across different public bodies—for example, the birth register, Passport Office, driving licence authority and NHS? How is that going to pan out? How will the Government ensure that this mixed data, such as so-called passport sex, is not relied on as an authoritative source to provide an answer to the sex question in the DVS? I respect the concerns that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly raised; my point is how we will ensure that the data verified for the sex field in the DVS, irrespective of any other field, is accurate and corresponds to biological sex.
Will the Government publish clear guidance for data users so that they know which sources of sex data can be trusted and which remain conflated? How will they put technical measures in place to ensure that unreliable sources do not come through the information gateway? Is it impossible that a person who expresses themselves as gender fluid or non-binary could have two different digital verification services apps—one that shows them as female and the other as male, but both bearing the digital verification trust mark? That may not seem terribly common, but it is a possibility for which we need an answer.
Finally, the Government have argued that it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used for applications such as single-sex services. The point was well made about a woman who wants a woman healthcare provider and health screening—by the way, that is also important for trans people to make sure that they are appropriately treated in services such as health. If the aim of the DVS is to provide trusted, interoperable, reusable digital identities that people can use to prove facts about themselves, is it not likely that this will be used in the services spoken about in the Supreme Court judgment and which advised should legitimately be kept as single sex and based on biological sex?
If the Government do not like these amendments from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, but they agree with their aim, I cannot honestly see why the Minister should object to enshrining them in more than the data accuracy principle, which, as I have said, has been, in the last decade, respected more in the breach than in the reality. I am not yet reassured that his assurances, as much as I respect his personal sincerity and integrity, are enough for us to rely on, as opposed to having something on the statute book.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too will speak to Motions 32A and 52A. Just to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I really appreciated that the Minister understood the concerns of those who moved these amendments. But, as the noble Baroness pointed out, reassurances have been given in this House, over many debates, that there was nothing to worry about in terms of confusion in relation to sex and gender. We have now ascertained via the Supreme Court that we needed some clarity and we have now got it. I do not want us to make the same mistake again.
I ask the Minister to clarify one thing he said in his opening remarks: that it would be overreach to ask the Secretary of State to declare biological sex as a material reality in all instances. I think that is what he said. I point out that biological sex is a material reality in all instances. Despite the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in relation to his friend, it is not, to clarify, about passing or appearances; it is about biological material reality. In that instance, the Minister called on us to have kindness. Of course, we should all have kindness all the time, in every instance. However, nobody here is trying to be unkind; the intent is to clarify. I liked something the Minister said in the past when he stated that
“we must have a single version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify it consistently and there need to be rules”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1620.]
I agree. It is not about kindness or unkindness; it is about clarification.
In addition to what has already been argued, this surely has to be about trust. I can tell the House that quite a lot of people I have spoken to are rather distrustful of digital ID of any sort. They are already cynical and anxious about what is going on with this data collection. I do not raise that point other than to say that the one thing you would want in order to counter such worries is that this particular measure should be trustworthy. Yet, to quote an article by Joan Smith in UnHerd, we are talking about “an officially sanctioned app” that will allow the falsification of sex, even if that is not its intent.
It would be a form of self-ID that appears to be endorsed by a government TrustMark based on documents that could be based on gender identity rather than sex. A government TrustMark ought to be trustworthy. It is supposed to guarantee that the data it contains is accurate, and that includes sex.
Something important happened with the Supreme Court’s clarification, but, of course, this is an ongoing discussion of the implications it has on a wide range of public policy. I understand that, but I fear that there are times when people suggest we should leave the Supreme Court to some kind of relativistic mishmash. People keep saying to me, “What’s your reading of it?” It is not about a reading; it is a clarification of the law. If this Bill inadvertently adds to that relativised muddle or is used as an excuse to dismiss the Supreme Court, that would be an unintended consequence of what the Government are doing. It could be simply sorted out by the Government themselves.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Colville, to say that in Committee I asked a number of times whether the science of conditioning—that is, the science of persuasive design that would extend the use of children—could be considered science under the current definition, and I never got an answer. So, although I am very sympathetic to the idea that science must be possible, whatever we do with the Bill, I would like to ensure that it is not, as the noble Viscount says, an excuse for any kind of commercial activity that could be perpetrated on the user.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I sat through the Committee stage and did not speak, because I was so clear that the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was really inappropriate. Indeed, it was the speech by my noble friend Lord Vallance that made me feel that speaking was unnecessary. I regret that, because I should have pointed out something very important.
First, to come back to what the noble Baroness has just said, the definitions in the Bill are flawed to start with. Devising new applications of available knowledge is not the work of scientists; it is essentially the work of technologists—and there is a big difference between technology and science. Technology has all sorts of downsides that we do not expect. Science is simply knowledge and, as such, it does not have an ethical dimension. That has been stated by many distinguished philosophers in the past.
I suggest to noble Lords that every invention and innovation that we make has a downside that we do not expect. I would challenge the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I have sat on a scientific committee with him and we have enjoyed each other’s company, but I would argue that there is not a single case where he could argue that there has not been an unexpected downside—as there is with every scientific invention. That, essentially, is why this is a flawed problem.
There are three problems facing humanity and the world at the moment. One, clearly, is nuclear war; one, clearly, is climate change; and perhaps the most important one is the risk of antibiotic resistance. It turns out that all these risks were completely unseen when those technologies were started. Marie Curie, working on pitchblende and radium, had no idea that the X-rays she was producing would be dangerous to her and would, unfortunately, result in her death as a result of cancer. She certainly did not recognise that there might be such a thing as nuclear explosions.
When it comes to, for example, climate change, it is obvious that we would not want to avoid having had the Industrial Revolution and all the things we got from it, just as we would not want to avoid having X-rays. But we must understand that the control has to come later.
Lastly, the most important thing for me is the possibility that infection is one of the greatest problems that humanity faces on earth at the moment. The invention of antibiotics has actually made that worse, because we now have a rising number of infections that are due to resistance. Therefore, I beg the noble Viscount not to press his amendment. I believe that it is absolutely well-meaning, and I understand what he is trying to say, but I hope that the Opposition, when they listen to this, will consider at least abstaining from voting on it, because the risk is that it might bring the House of Lords into disrepute as it stands.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I am authorised to speak on Motion 43A, as someone with regular day-to-day experience of scientific research. Since I started my PhD in 1981, I have had the privilege of spending more than half my working life doing scientific research in the UK—the last 20 years working with very sensitive patient data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in collaboration with medtech, AI and pharmaceutical companies.
This research has required me to become familiar with many three-letter and four-letter acronyms. Noble Lords will know about DBS, but they might not know about RSO, TRO, HRA, LREC, MREC, CAG, and IRAS, to name just a few. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical colleagues to fill in integrated research application system—IRAS—forms. IRAS is used to apply for Health Research Authority—HRA—approval for research projects involving the NHS, social care or the criminal justice system. I have appeared before not only medical research ethics committees, or MRECs, which test whether a research protocol is scientifically valid and ethical, but local research ethics committees, or LRECs, which consider the suitability of individual researchers and local issues.
I was involved in a research project which reused data acquired from patients on a Covid isolation ward during the first two waves of the pandemic. That research project sought to understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical-grade wearables we used to monitor these high-risk patients during Covid. It took our research team more than 18 months to obtain the relevant permissions to reuse the data for our proposed analysis. Our application was reviewed by the Confidentiality Advisory Group—CAG—which provides independent expert advice on the use of confidential patient information without consent for research and non-research purposes. CAG already considers whether accessing the confidential data is justified by the public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to decide whether to grant access to the confidential data.
The existing provisions in this country to allow access to data for research purposes are stringent, and it is entirely right that they should be. The UK is respected the world over for the checks and balances of its research governance. The relevant safeguards already exist in the current legislation. Adding a further public interest test will only increase the amount of bureaucracy that will inevitably be introduced by the research services offices, or RSOs, and the translational research offices, or TROs, of our universities, which are very good at doing this.
The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves, and some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment, I am afraid, will have the unintended consequence of having a negative impact on research in this country, so I cannot support it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this group of amendments, but I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Viscounts for introducing their amendments so clearly.
I acknowledge that Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are considerably less prescriptive than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons to introduce new Clause 21, which seemed to require public authorities to comb through every record to rectify data, went significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, and potentially failed to account for the privacy afforded to GRC holders under the Gender Recognition Act. However, the Liberal Democrats will abstain from votes on the noble Viscount’s amendments for several key reasons.
Our primary reason is the need to allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised. I thought the Minister made his case there. The EHRC is currently updating its code of practice, as we have heard, to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act, with the aim of providing it to the Government by the end of June. This guidance, as I understand it, is intended specifically to support service providers, public bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in the light of the judgment. The EHRC is undertaking a public consultation to understand how the practical implications can best be reflected. These amendments, in our view, are an attempt to jump the gun on, second-guess or at the least pre-empt the EHRC’s code of practice.
On these Benches, we believe that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards should be informed by the official guidance and implemented consistently in a coherent and workable manner. We should allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised, ensuring that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards are informed by its advice and implemented consistently across public authorities in a coherent and workable manner. We have concerns about workability and clarity. Although the amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are less prescriptive than previous similar proposals in the Commons tabled by Dr Spencer, we have concerns about their practical implementation. Questions arise about how public authorities would reliably ascertain biological sex if someone has a gender recognition certificate and has updated their birth certificate. I have long supported same-sex wards in the NHS, but I do not believe that these amendments are helpful in pursuing clarity following the Supreme Court judgment. We heard what the Minister had to say about passports.
I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment, but there are clearly implications, both practical and legal, to be worked out, such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I thought he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the right result. I agree that data needs to be accurate, and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend. In summary, we will be abstaining. We believe that the EHRC process needs to conclude and provide comprehensive guidance, while also reflecting concerns about the workability and appropriateness of specific legislative interventions on data standards at this time.
I move on to Amendment 43B, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This amendment may not reinstate the precise wording
“conducted in the public interest”
that we previously inserted in this House, but it would introduce safeguards that seek to address the same fundamental concerns articulated during our debate on Report. It does two important things.
First, it provides a definition of “scientific research”, clarifying it as
“creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge”.
This directly addresses the concerns raised on Report that the line between product development and scientific research is often blurred, with developers sometimes positing efforts to increase model capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish genuine research from purely commercial activity cloaked as such.
Secondly, and critically, Amendment 43B would require:
“To meet the reasonableness test”
already present in the Bill,
“the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards”.
This requirement seeks to embed within the reasonableness test the principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement on Report and is the same as the amendment put forward by the chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, Chi Onwurah MP, which ties the definition to the definition in the OECD’s Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development:
“creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of humankind, culture and society—and to devise new applications of available knowledge”.
The Frascati framework is used worldwide by Governments, universities and research institutions to report R&D statistics, inform science policy and underpin R&D tax credit regimes, and it serves as a common language and reference point for international comparisons and policy decisions related to scientific research and innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the very purposes we previously identified for the public interest test: ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends, addressing harmful applications, and alignment with standards.
Amendment 43B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is a thoughtful and necessary counter-proposal. It is Parliament’s opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust and responsible conduct, rooted in established frameworks, must remain central to the definition of scientific research that benefits from data re-use exceptions.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, had to say in his very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, cuts across all the things that he wants to see in the outcomes of research.
Lord Winston (Lab)
As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, I simply ask him this question: does he recall the situation only some 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation, when there were overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both Houses of Parliament on two occasions, and when, finally, a Private Member’s Bill was brought, which would have abolished IVF in this country? Had that happened, of course, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have made a colossal difference not only to our knowledge of embryo growth, but our knowledge of development, ageing, the development of cancer and a whole range of things that we never expected from human embryology. I beg the noble Lord to consider that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have had a misspent not-so-youth over the past 50 years. As a lawyer, when I read the wording in the amendment, I cannot see the outcome that he is suggesting. This wording does not cut across anything that he has had to say. I genuinely believe that. I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat, but I do not believe this wording is such a threat.
I also understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, had to say, but an awful lot of that was about the frustration and some of the controls over health data. That does not apply in many other areas of scientific research. The Frascati formula is universal and well accepted. The noble Viscount made an extremely good case; we should be supporting him.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C, and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C. I reiterate that this Government have been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex for equalities legislation. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says, it is critically important that the Government work through the effect of this ruling with care, sensitivity and in line with the law.
When it comes to public sector data, we must work through the impacts of this judgment properly. This would involve considering the scope of the judgment and the upcoming EHRC guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has indicated that it will be updating its statutory code of practice for services, public functions and associations in light of this ruling, which will include some of the examples raised this afternoon, including by my noble friend Lady Hayter.
Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has submitted its updated draft. It is right that the Government and, indeed, Parliament fully consider this guidance alongside the judgment itself before amending the way that public authorities collect, hold and otherwise process data—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the EHRC ruling.
I set out in my opening speech that this Government take the issue of data accuracy seriously. That is why, as I outlined, there are numerous existing work streams addressing the way in which sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed across the public sector.
The digital verification services amendments that we have discussed today are misplaced, because the Bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content of data used by digital verification services. Instead, the Bill enables people to do digitally what they can do physically. It is for organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their circumstances, and how they go about doing that. Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically would cause further confusion.
While this Government understand the intention behind the amendments, the concerns regarding the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator and the specific requirements of public authorities. It is very unlikely that the digital verification services would be used for many of the cases specifically raised by or with many noble Lords. We expect DVS to be used primarily to prove things like one’s right to work or one’s age, address or professional educational qualifications.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by, in effect, indiscriminately and indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. I raise the example that has been brought up several times, and again by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: it is not relevant for the French passport officer to know your biological sex. That is not the purpose of the passport.
We acknowledge, however, that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including those of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, regarding information being shared under Clause 45 but without presenting issues that could cut across existing or prospective legislation and guidance. I remind the House that the data accuracy principle is already included in law. The principle requires that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used. Again, there are workstreams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and indeed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked why it was not accurate for 15 years and what that means about our reliance on this accuracy. I am afraid the fact is that it was accurate for 15 years because there was a muddle about what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex, but that is the case now. In response to the question of whether you could end up with two different sources of digital verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I beg the House’s indulgence and indeed the Minister’s for my interrupting him. The fact is that the Supreme Court has confirmed what was always the law: that the Equality Act meant biological sex. It is therefore not true that the data accuracy principle has ensured that the law has been followed for the past 15 years. I am sorry, I find that answer a little dismissive. I do not think we can rely on that sort of assurance, and I apologise for saying that.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness if she found that dismissive. My point was to try to say that there is a clear imperative under the new situation to have biological sex verified as biological sex. As a result—though not in all cases; I have given an example where it would be inappropriate to have that information—where you need that, it would not be possible, to answer her second question, to have two different sources of verification that gave two different biological sexes.
When information is shared through the gateway, it will be clear what that information represents, including in relation to sex and gender. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment, I further reassure Members by clarifying that, before the information gateway provision is commenced, the Government will carefully consider how and when biological sex may be relevant in the context of digital verification checks, and will take that into account when preparing the DVS code of practice.
I hope that these commitments and the assurance about the EHRC will provide noble Lords with reassurances that their concerns will indeed be taken into account. The amendments proposed do not fully take into account the fact that the Gender Recognition Act gives those with gender recognition certificates a level of privacy and control over who has access to information about their gender history. It is essential that Government have the chance to fully assess the Supreme Court judgment and update guidance accordingly. Given the need to consider this area holistically to ensure alignment with existing legislation and upcoming EHRC guidance, the breadth of work already being carried out on public data standards and data harmonisation and statistics, and the specific reassurance on compliance with the accuracy principle under the UK GDPR, I hope the noble Viscount feels comfortable not pressing his amendments.
I turn to Motion 43A from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Scientific research is one of the UK’s great strengths. We are home to four of the top 10 universities in the world and are in the top three in scientific outputs. Today’s researchers depend on data, and the UK data protection framework contains certain accommodations for processing personal data for purposes that meet the definition of scientific research in Clause 67. I understand the noble Viscount’s intention to avoid misuse of these research provisions, but the Royal Society has said the reasonableness test in the Bill provides adequate protection against that. The Bill actually tightens the current position, with the ICO being able to use the reasonableness test. “Reasonable” does not mean the subjective opinion of an uninformed person; it refers to an objective, fair observer with good judgment and knowledge of the relevant facts. Such tests are well known to UK courts.
The Bill does not extend and expand that definition. If something is not considered scientific research now, it will not be under the Bill. Similarly, the Bill does not provide any new permission for reusing data for other research purposes. Moreover, further safeguards are provided in Clause 86 and the wider UK GDPR, including the requirement that processing be fair. The Bill clarifies that all reuse of data must have a lawful basis, putting an end to previous confusion on the matter. Adding further specific conditions to the definition in law will be unnecessary and impose a disproportionate burden on researchers, who already say they spend too much time on red tape. The previous Government rightly started to tackle the pernicious creep of increased bureaucracy in research. We should not add more. At worst, this could have an unintended harmful consequence and exclude genuine researchers.
The Frascati manual provides useful guidance; it is not, however, a legal definition. Requiring researchers to start complying with a new legal standard, and one that might change, would undoubtedly create more committees and more bureaucracy—the very thing that Max Perutz argued against in his guidelines on great research.
My noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, have given powerful examples. Let me give two examples of where the proposals might cause problems. Does requiring research to be creative hinder the essential task in science of testing or reproducing existing findings? Does the Frascati manual definition of “systematic”, which means “budgeted”, exclude unfunded, early research trying to get a foothold? Let us not dampen the UK’s world-leading research sector for a protection that is already included in the Bill.
I sympathise with the intentions of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I assure him that the Bill also contains a power to add to the existing safeguards and narrow access to the research provisions if necessary. The Government would not hesitate to use that power if it ever became necessary to tackle misuse.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 31.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32.
Viscount Camrose
Moved by
32A: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 32, and do propose Amendments 32B and 32C to the words so restored to the Bill—
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the Minister for his very able summing up of his position, but I am afraid I cannot get past the question in my mind of how existing legacy data, even if it is managed by a DVS system going forward, will suddenly be of high quality when it is currently, as we know from the Sullivan report, in a muddle. As a result, for all his eloquence, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 33.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 34 and do propose Amendments 34B and 34C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“106CA Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must produce guidance for persons described in subsection (2) about how to protect information kept in, or obtained from, NUAR.
(2) The persons are persons who, pursuant to regulations made under section 106C, are able to access information kept in NUAR.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the guidance.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance) in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons described in subsection (2).
(5) The same guidance may discharge the obligations of the Secretary of State under this section and under Article 45CA of the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3210 (N.I. 19)).”
“45CA Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must produce guidance for persons described in paragraph (2) about how to protect information kept in, or obtained from, NUAR.
(2) The persons are persons who, pursuant to regulations made under Article 45C, are able to access information kept in NUAR.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the guidance.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance) in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons described in paragraph (2).
(5) The same guidance may discharge the obligations of the Secretary of State under this Article and under section 106CA of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35 to 42.
“(4A) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers in relation to any provision that relates to apparatus in streets in Wales.”
“(A1) Before making regulations under this Order the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Department for Infrastructure.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 43.
Viscount Colville of Culross
43A: At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 43B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“2A. For the purposes of paragraph 2, “scientific research” means creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.
2B. To meet the reasonableness test in paragraph 2, the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.””
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Tarassenko, but I am not convinced that my amendment would stop the research as they suggested. However, it would protect users’ data as the technological revolution unfolds. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 44.
The Parliamentary Hnder-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 45 to 51 and 78. There has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I set out the Government’s position, which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. I make it clear that this Bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider intellectual property regulation. It does not introduce an opt-out system, nor does it contain any delegated powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI training in exactly the way it did before the Bill was introduced.
This Government recognise the enormous economic and social value of our creative industries. We saw that just last week, as the nation came together to commemorate the anniversary of VE Day. Our creative sector entertains and informs us. It is the best of us as a nation. Our manifesto quite rightly pledged to work with the creative industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble Lords will know, the creative industries are worth £124 billion GVA and support 2.4 million jobs. Since 2010, they have grown at 1.5 times the rate of the rest of the economy.
The creative industries are one of our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. In January 2025, as a first step in delivering that strategy, we announced: first, that the British Business Bank will increase its support for creative industry businesses to help them access the finances they need to grow; secondly, that UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to drive R&D-led growth; thirdly, that shorter-duration apprenticeships as a first step towards a flexible growth and skills levy that meets creative industry employers' needs will be introduced; fourthly, a commitment to devolve funding to six priority mayoral strategic authorities to drive the growth of creative clusters; and, fifthly, a £19 million package of funding for programmes including the UK Games Fund, the UK Global Screen Fund, music export growth schemes and create growth programmes. The Government will build on this support through the upcoming creative industry sector plan, which we publish very soon.
Our manifesto also recognises both the opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledged to take early action, and one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future of copyright reform to ensure that protections are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a large volume of responses—something in the region of 11,500—and assessing the evidence that we have received. Our proposals will be based on that evidence and what works, rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do properly and, as such, the Government did not and do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle to make any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act quickly, but we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that the policy outcome is the one that best balances the potential of AI and the need to support rights holders.
Although we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we understand the need to demonstrate that this Government, unlike others, want to follow best practice, engage meaningfully with all sides and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant amendments passed during Lords stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in a fair, evidence-based way.
Of course we agree that there should be greater transparency about the use of protected material to train AI models. We agree that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that will empower rights holders to decide whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to all sides and to ensure that a reformed copyright regime is carefully thought through, effectively and robustly supported by the evidence. As our amendments set out, we will report on four substantive areas within 12 months. These will clearly signpost what we want to deliver and how we propose to do so. We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s case so clearly. I will speak to my Amendment 46A, which seeks to improve the report that the Government brought forward in the other place. This issue is causing real concern for copyright owners and so many others in the creative industries. Let us remind ourselves that the creative industries contributed £124 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and outperformed the UK economy between 2010 and 2023 in terms of growth. The Government are, wisely and rightly, prioritising growth over other concerns, and the creative industries will have to be an essential part of this—but only to the extent that they have a trusted and efficient marketplace for intellectual property.
Our amendment would improve the Government’s proposed report by adding consideration of extra territorial use of creators’ copyright works by operators of web crawlers and AI systems, as well as consideration of establishing a digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content. I very much take on board the Minister’s point that this must be international to work, but few countries, if any, would have better or greater convening power to initiate the process of creating such digital standards. I urge the Government to pursue that avenue.
I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have raised the issue of copyright during the passage of this Bill. I am sure that I will be joining many others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led such a powerful and successful campaign on this issue. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have recognised the serious concerns raised by the creative sector and, on Report, we tabled an amendment seeking to create a digital watermark to identify this content and to protect copyright owners. I am very pleased that the Government have taken the first step by amending the Bill in the other place to put a report in it. That being said, the report needs to go further. If the Government are unwilling to accept our changes, I will test the opinion of the House when my amendment is called.
I turn briefly to Motion 49A, I the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I once again pay tribute to the work that she has done to make progress on this. While we had concerns about the drafting of her amendment on Report, I am very pleased that she has tabled her Amendment 49B today. With the additional parts of it targeted at supporting small businesses and micro-entities, we are delighted to support it. It is increasingly clear that the Government must do the right thing for our creative industries, and we are delighted to offer our support to Motoin 49A. I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 46A when it is called.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion 49A and offer my support to Amendment 46A in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. It is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Government find a way to accept it without challenge.
I start by rebutting three assertions that have been circling over the past few weeks. First, I reject the notion that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are against technology. I quote the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, who I am delighted to see is below Bar this afternoon. He said to the FT that:
“Just as in every other time there is change in society, there will be some people who will either resist change or try to make change too difficult to deliver”.
Well, creative people are early adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices innovative. In my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film industry transform from working on celluloid to being a world-leading centre of digital production. For the past five years at Oxford’s Institute for Ethics in AI, where I am an advisor, I have been delighted to watch the leaps and bounds of AI development. Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers, and creative people are natural innovators. The Government’s attempt to divide us is wrong.
The transformational impact of technology is something that all the signatories of this weekend’s letter to the Prime Minister understand. Creators do not deny the creative and economic value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work and then rent it back from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress but about value. The AI companies fiercely defend their own IP but deny the value of our work. Not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but we, the creative industries, embody both change and tradition, and we reject the assertion that we are standing in the way of change. We are merely asserting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK’s future growth.
Secondly, there is no confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of the creative industries that the Government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property rights. In our last debate, my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made an unequivocal statement to that effect which has been widely supported by other legal opinion. The Government’s spokesman, who has greeted every press inquiry of the last few weeks by saying that the Government are consulting to sort out the confusion in copyright in relation to AI is, at best, misinformed. Let me be clear: the amendment would not change copyright. We do not need to change copyright law. We need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law, because what you cannot see you cannot enforce.
Thirdly, I rebut the idea that this is the wrong Bill and the wrong time. AI did not exist in the public realm until the early 2020s. The speed and scale at which copyright works are being stolen is eye-watering. Property that people have invested in, have created, have traded and that they rely on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value chain. It is an assault on the British economy, happening at scale to a sector worth £120 billion to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import. It is happening now, and we have not even begun to catch up with the devastating consequences. The Government have taken our amendments out of the Bill and replaced them with a couple of toothless reports. Whatever these reports bring forward and whatever the consultation offers, we need the amendment in front of us today now. If this Bill does not protect copyright then, by the time that the Government work out their policy, there will be little to save.
The language of AI—scraping, training, data modules, LLMs—does not evoke the full picture of what is being done. AI corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their existing information monopolies, are not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK’s most valuable cultural and economic assets—Harry Potter, the entire back catalogue of every music publisher in the UK, the voice of Hugh Grant, the design of an iconic handbag and the IP of our universities, great museums and library collections. Even the news is stolen in real time, all without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore. It costs UK corporations and individuals their hard-earned wealth and the Treasury much needed revenue. It also denudes the opportunities of the next generation because, whether you are a corporation or an individual, if work is stolen at every turn, you cannot survive. The time is now, and this Bill is the vehicle.
Motion 49A replaces the previous package of Lords amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who wishes he could be with us; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his colleagues, who have been uncompromising in their support; and my noble friend Lord Freyberg, who were all co-sponsors of the original amendment.
Amendment 49B would simply provide that a copyright holder be able to see who took their work, what was taken, when and why, allowing them a reasonable route to assert their moral right to determine whether they wish to have their work used, and if so, on what terms. It is a slimmer version of the previous package of amendments, but it covers the same ground and, importantly, it puts a timeline of 12 months on bringing forward these provisions and makes specific provision for SMEs and micro-entities and for UK-headquartered AI companies.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the Royal College of Music.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; I strongly support Motion 49A in her name. All who value the creative life of our country owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for her doughty campaigning, and I agree with everything that she said in thanking all those who have taken part.
At the heart of this debate there are—the Minister made that point—two complex policy issues: the rapid development and regulation of AI and the operation of copyright law. Both can seem a bit daunting to those not directly involved. AI is scary, copyright law is highly complex and many would be forgiven simply for wanting to steer clear. But not one of us can turn our back today with impunity on this issue. We all have a responsibility because, if we strip this debate back to its basics, there are three very simple principles at stake that affect all our lives and are central to everything that this House stands for.
The first is the defence of property. For centuries, since the copyright Act of 1709, when an individual has created something—a book, a film, some music—they have retained ownership of it and earned a living from its use. It is their property and the law protects them. That centuries-old right is under threat for the first time because the Government refuse properly to apply the law to artificial intelligence, allowing it simply to plunder someone else’s work and profit from it. They are putting AI beyond the scope of the law by failing to give creators the transparency they need to inform it.
At heart, this is dead simple. Unless this Bill is amended, it is the equivalent of saying to a homeowner that, once they have bought a house and filled it with their possessions, the Government want them to leave the front door wide open, invite anonymous passers-by to come in, take anything they want for free and allow them to go away and sell it for their own profit, while the homeowner has no protection at all in law. It is legalising theft. This amendment simply seeks to allow those who create content in an age of rapacious AI to put a lock on their door and protect their property by letting them know when theft is taking place and giving them a form of redress. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for the protection of property.
The second is the nurturing of human creativity. It was Beethoven—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will correct me if I have got this wrong—who once said that there is a “divine spark”, a creative genius, in all of us. Whether we paint a picture, take a photograph or write a piece of music, we all have something in us that allows us to express ourselves and enrich the lives of others in doing so. It is copyright that protects our ability to do that. That is why the creative life of the UK has always been so vibrant, so colourful, so entertaining and so powerful. It is why our creative industries flourish and play such a vital role in economic growth. If you take away copyright protection, you snuff out that divine spark and endanger the livelihoods of those who depend on their own creative ability for their living. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for nurturing creativity and the divine spark.
Finally, and most importantly, there is the defence of democracy itself. If it has been said once in this House, it has been said a thousand times: democracy depends on the existence of a free, independent press, empowering the electorate with reliable information and scrutinising those in power. That role is even more important in an age of disinformation and unverified, unregulated, AI-generated content, with editorial judgment and oversight overtaken by algorithms and the tyranny of recycled, distorted, circular information. But the provision of independent and verified regulated news will be among the very first victims of AI if this amendment is not passed and we do not act very soon.
I do not say this lightly; having spent almost my whole career in the media, I am choosing my words very carefully, but I have to give the House this warning. AI has the capacity utterly to destroy independent news organisations, because it feasts off millions of articles written by journalists without any attribution or payment, destroying the business model that makes the free press possible. Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of cyberspace, where no legal framework exists: the advertising which supports it taken by the platforms, its content stolen by AI. There will be only a husk left.
The answer is this amendment, which will turbocharge an embryonic licensing market to ensure fair payment for creators and access to high-quality information for AI models. If the AI developers are forced to declare whose content they are taking, they will know they will end up in the courts if they do not negotiate a licence. The term “existential threat” is bandied around too much, but this is not crying wolf. Unless we introduce transparency, control over content and fair remuneration within in a dynamic licensing market, the threat to free media is genuinely existential. As a consequence, the threat to democracy itself is also genuinely existential. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for democracy.
We have to act now. The Bill’s laissez-faire approach to copyright protection, in craven obeisance to the platforms, means that we will not get any action on transparency until well-nigh the end of this Parliament. For many publications, however, by that point, the end will already have come, and, once lost, there will be no way of recreating the plural, competitive media that has sustained parliamentary democracy for centuries. It is game over. That may sound alarmist, but it is absolutely what is at stake here. To any noble Lord considering voting against this amendment, I say this: it is already five minutes to midnight for our free press and our democracy. Unless we back this amendment today, history will damn this House with its most deadly words: “Too late”.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My noble Lords, friends and those of a creative disposition, lend me your ears. Even though I have come late to this Bill, I wonder what Shakespeare would have had to say about Al. Last night, I presented the special BAFTA award to ITV for commissioning the landmark drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, which is British television at its best. I wondered whether AI would have had the intuitive instinct to create such an important drama, which brought about societal change. That is why I rise to strongly support my intrepid friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion 49A and declare an interest as per the register.
As this Bill has shown, we stand at a fascinating—and perhaps unsettling—crossroads in the world of creativity. The rise of artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic fantasy. It is a tangible force, reshaping the very fabric of our creative industry and potentially stealing livelihoods and, most of all, our children’s future. Do the Government really want that to be part of their legacy?
For centuries, the essence of acting or singing has been a unique connection between a human performer and an audience. We pour our emotions, experiences and understanding of the human condition into convincing characters, telling stories that emotionally connect. Now, however, AI is stepping on to our stage, offering digital doubles, synthesised voices and the potential of entirely AI-generated programmes, including animated children’s programmes.
The immediate impacts are already being felt. AI tools can now replicate an actor’s likeness and voice, raising concerns about the unauthorised use of identities, both living and deceased. The ability to create digital doubles or stunts—or even entire scenes—will reduce the demand for human actors. Some argue that AI will be a tool to enhance our craft, aiding in voice training, accent work or even music and scriptwriting; but the underlying anxiety about job displacement is real and valid.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first contribution on this Bill, although I have sat in every debate on this issue going back to Committee. I do not have a creative nerve in my body—I have nothing to declare—but my life and those of hundreds of millions of others have been enhanced by writers, actors and music-makers across the world.
It is sad in a way—and this is not a criticism of anybody personally who is around at the present time—that the nature of Labour in Parliament has changed. When I arrived in the Commons 51 years ago, on the Labour Benches was Maurice Edelman, 30 years there from 1945, a writer of fiction and non-fiction of note. My near neighbour, parliamentary-wise, was Andrew Faulds, who was already in; he played Jet Morgan in “Journey into Space” and Carver Doon in the series of “Lorna Doon”. In fact, I have been wondering in the last couple of days, knowing I was going to refer to him, how the little people—the little helpers for the Prime Minister in the Whips’ Office in the other place—would cope with Andrew today. He was a formidable character who could scare the life out of his friends.
Thirty years after that, I joined this place. Ruth Rendell was on the Benches. David Puttnam, the world-renowned producer, joined some years later, and we have my noble friend Lord Cashman. I make this personal. I do not speak for any of them and have not spoken to anybody about what I was going to say, although I indicated my view to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, at the weekend. But I am being asked to deliver wholesale—I have to say that I have a bit of criticism about delivery—the work of these people to big tech. I am not doing it. I have not the slightest intention of doing it, which is why I shall vote for this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
I too support the noble Baroness.
As I said at the previous stage of this Bill, it surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property by artificial intelligence companies.
As the noble Baroness’s present amendment illustrates, we should provide transparency criteria that would allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with that aim, as well as being well aware of the strong human rights back-up support to us from the 46 states’ affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman.
As many of your Lordships know, first and foremost, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights and copyright.
Secondly, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data, while its Article 10 stipulates
“Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights”.
Thirdly, Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law safeguards privacy and personal data.
Regarding copyright protection in recent centuries, and as emphasised at an earlier stage of our discussions on this Bill, we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom record, beginning, as is well known, with the Statute of Anne 1710, which granted legal protection to publishers of books.
In the interests of those both here and abroad, we must now uphold the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide the good practice. Here, today, supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is a clear example of our ability so to do.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will be brief partly because it is such a simple amendment: it would just put the principle of the transparency of these models in the Bill. We need to know what goes into these models for two reasons. The first is so that any form of copyright can be prosecuted. At the moment, how can we know that even our current copyright rules have been broken if we do not know what goes into these models? It does not matter whether the Government are thinking about changing the copyright rules. Whatever copyright rules we have, we need to know what is being used in the models.
The second reason is the outputs of these models. We need to know on what they were trained in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, himself said this in answer to a question from my noble friend Lady Coussins during Oral Questions on Tuesday: if the data that has gone into the model is not transparent, we cannot ascertain its strengths and weaknesses without extensive proxy measurements and probing.
On these two principles, it is vital that this simple amendment goes through today. That it has some added benefits from being able to legislate separately for small and medium-sized enterprises, micro-businesses and UK businesses just adds to the fact that this amendment has been carefully crafted to give us exactly what we need in the Bill today.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, posed an appropriate question: what would Shakespeare make of AI? The answer is rather like the proverbial million monkeys on their typewriter: so far they have failed to produce a credible version of Shakespeare, but they have produced several improved versions of The Art of the Deal, as far as I can ascertain.
I too will speak to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the government amendments that came back from the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for her engagement on this and the briefing that she gave earlier today to noble friends, other colleagues and noble Peers across the House, and my very good personal friend Minister Chris Bryant, whose charismatic presence I felt around us earlier—almost as if he was observing our proceedings.
I also thank the Secretary of State for having confirmed, via a third party in last weekend’s press, that the Government have changed their position on having the opt-out in the consultation as their preferred position. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that on the Floor of the House today, because I believe that is an accurate position and an accurate assessment, even though it was delivered via a spokesperson rather than directly by the Secretary of State. It is a very helpful change, and I welcome the movement the Government have made in the amendments they put forward. I note that it is part of Motion 49A that we accept the government amendments to produce the reports that were mentioned.
I declare that I am a member of the Ivors Academy and the Musicians’ Union, and draw attention to my entry in the register. Creative remuneration was one of the central issues that I worked on as a parliamentarian for the 23 years I was in the House of Commons, certainly while I was on the Front Bench in opposition, as a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, as it was then, and as the sponsor of a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons. Although it did not get into law, the Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, Etc.) Bill had a significant influence and led, for example, to the creation of the remuneration committee, which is currently sitting within the offices of the Intellectual Property Office. Strong efforts are being made, with very strong engagement from Minister Chris Bryant, to hold to account everyone concerned in the music industry to improve remuneration for creators, and particularly for musicians, which is my interest.
This is not just about rights holders. I have never understood why anybody in the creative industries could, for example, start off with a love of music and creativity but become an executive in the creative industries and think that they are worthy of being paid more than the people who actually create the wonderful content that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was speaking about earlier. How can a music industry executive reward themselves with a greater remuneration than the entire remuneration of every songwriter in this country? There is only one explanation: by the personal attrition of their soul—but that is another matter altogether.
The Bill is an opportunity. The key point is that obviously the elected House should have its way—I strongly believe that, as a former Member—but it is important that this House has its say along the way and that transparency is key. We cannot enforce copyright and rights holders cannot enforce their rights unless there is transparency. This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road, in the form of some future primary legislation. I hope that there is an opportunity for a compromise and that, should we send these amendments back to the other place, the Government look for a way to give a commitment towards ensuring that, through the Bill, they can take powers to regulate on transparency in the near future.
I was fortunate enough last week to accompany—this is an absolutely blatant name-drop—Björn Ulvaeus of Abba.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, objects. He would never do such a thing himself. I am glad he introduced me to the founder of Motown Records on one occasion in these Corridors, so he would never do something similar himself.
As I showed him the Royal Gallery, he took particular interest in one of the frescoes and asked me, “Who is that in that fresco speaking to the Duke of Wellington?” I said, “Well, that’s Marshal Blücher, of course, the head of the Prussian army at—”, and suddenly the penny dropped. I said to him, “Somebody should write a song about that”, and he said, “Yes, that’s a great idea. It could be a metaphor for a love affair”. I said, “I’m surprised no one’s thought of that before”—and we never mentioned the word “Waterloo” once.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned Beethoven. In declaring my interests as a composer, I should also mention that I have acted as an expert witness in cases of musical copyright. While doing that, I was asked by one of my learned friends, “What constitutes something that’s worthy of copyright?” I said, “Ba ba ba bom”. Why? Because that, in terms of the law, is a substantial idea. Just think what has been made of it ever since. The whole notion of copyright comes down to something valuable; it does not matter how long or how short it is. Creativity in the UK is already, I am afraid, in a somewhat parlous state and any erosion of copyright will add yet another cut to an already wounded body.
The Minister mentioned technology and, of course, we all use technology. We all want to use technology. The famous composers—wonderful songwriters, including Paul McCartney, Elton John and Sting—who have headed the letter to the Prime Minister, have all used technology to great effect. With the greatest respect, it is slightly insulting to say to them that we are pulling the shutters down because we want to know who is using our music. That cannot be something, intellectually, that holds water. People need to know how their music is being used. They have a right to know.
Why is this an important factor? Let me give the example, which I have mentioned once before in your Lordships’ House, of what happened with streaming. In other words, we have been bitten once already. In a way, I welcome opening music and the arts to the whole world through the internet, and streaming certainly does that, but what did it do? A very well-known musician, a top 10 artist, said to me the other day, “Where does all this money go? It doesn’t go to us”. If you ask Paul McCartney, Elton John or Sting how their royalties have changed over the years, they will tell you that they have gone down massively.
This is not just about famous musicians. Paul McCartney, Elton John and Sting would be the first to say that this is also about the little-known songwriters who at the moment make a pittance but are hoping to make something. Obviously, those famous names attract attention. It is quite right that they do and I am grateful for their support. However, there is also a whole other section, the contemporary classical music section, which I know supports the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as do writers, theatre directors and filmmakers. This is a very dangerous Bill if we cannot curtail this.
I am glad the Minister is listening and wants to help and wants to find a way through. If we do not make improvements to this, we could be short-changing something that brings an absolute fortune into the Treasury: not just a fortune in money but a fortune in joy. I have mentioned Paul McCartney, Elton John and Sting—think about what they have brought into people’s lives. Although my section, the contemporary classical section, may be less famous and less well known, those musicians too have a right to be heard. Their view is that, if you allow, for example, training—it is suggested that it might be okay to allow people to use our products in training—that is the thin end of the wedge.
When streaming came in, the record industry virtually disappeared. I know the manager of a classical record company who said to me, “Why would we want to record this piece? It’s already out there on the internet”. You have to think about what follows on from opening this world up. I think the Government are listening, and many noble Lords have pointed out exactly what the dangers are.
I certainly will support my noble friend Lady Kidron. She has done sterling work. We are not making a fuss about nothing. This is the thin end of the wedge and we have to try to curtail it now for the future of music—and indeed all the other arts—in this country.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I welcome the government additions made to the Bill in the Commons and endorse my noble friend Lord Camrose’s amendments, especially those relating to removing barriers to entry. It is vital that AI does not end up controlled by the same tech firms that dominate cloud, search and social media. This important new technology presents an opportunity for challenger firms and new markets to emerge, including affordable access to quality copyrighted data. Much of what I will say in a moment is very much with them in mind.
As to the amendment on transparency from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, she is right, in the context of copyright, to prioritise transparency. As I have argued before, whatever kind of solution is eventually adopted, opt out or opt in, transparency will be necessary for that solution to work.
The noble Baroness is also right to press the urgency of this. Content creators cannot afford to wait, so she has my support and my vote. Indeed, with the support of both the Conservative and Lib Dem Benches today, the Government could well be defeated. That would be most welcome. I am sure the Minister does not like me saying that, but that is my view.
That said, there are some aspects of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that may, at this juncture, be a little bit too prescriptive for primary legislation ahead of a policy decision on the solution for how to uphold copyright. I will focus briefly on what happens next if the Government are defeated tonight.
I strongly urge the Government not to do what they can: remove the clause that the noble Baroness would add to the Bill once it got back down the other end. Instead, what I urge the Government to do what they should: bring back an amendment in lieu. We all want a future for AI, where the creative industries and the tech sector—big and little tech—can be confident that the playing field for competition is fair and, when it comes to the use of copyrighted content, that they can strike mutually beneficial deals.
We may be a little way off from achieving that way forward, as is reflected in the Government’s additions to the Bill and the work they have promised over the next 12 months, but that work should not preclude the Government taking a power in the Bill to bring back secondary legislation to address transparency as soon as they have finished the work outlined in their Amendment 46. As other noble Lords have already argued, transparency is needed now and, as I have said, it will be relevant to whatever policy solution the Government decide on. So, a requirement on them to act in this area is not unreasonable.
From the perspective of content creators, who, it has to be said, may well be immensely powerful in ensuring that they get publicity and coverage of their cause, the future looks highly uncertain. So, a binding commitment with a deadline to bring forward transparency regulations at this juncture, while the Bill is going through Parliament, is reasonable if such a new clause is not overly prescriptive. That is what I would advise the Government to do next, assuming they are defeated tonight.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak as the founder of two AI spin-outs, and I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as the founder-director of Oxehealth, a University of Oxford spin-out that uses AI for healthcare applications. I am also the author of three copyrighted books.
Since these amendments were last debated in the House of Lords, there has been a lot of high-profile comment but very few attempts, if any, to bring AI developers and creators together in the same room. During the same period, however, more businesses from the creative industries and the publishing sector have agreed content-licensing deals. That is because access to curated, high-quality content to fine-tune large language models—the step after pre-training which provides high-accuracy responses—is increasingly being monetised.
Even the Guardian Media Group, a strong supporter of the creative industries, announced in February a strategic partnership with Open AI to ensure compensation for the use of its high-quality journalism. This shows that it is possible, without any change in the law, for the creative industries and the big tech companies to come to licensing agreements.
The main technological development since our last debate has been the demonstration that training LLMs no longer requires the massive computer facilities and huge data centres of the big tech companies in the US. Since the beginning of the year, the Chinese company DeepSeek has released open-source LLMs hundreds of times smaller than hyperscale models such as GPT-4, Gemini or Claude Sonnet. These models, typically with, say, 10 billion weights, have been developed through the process of distillation, and they achieve almost the same level of performance as the hyperscale models with 1 trillion weights.
Why is that important? It means that users of LLMs no longer have to send queries to those hyperscale models which are then processed by OpenAI, Google or Anthropic using their huge compute facilities with thousands of GPUs in their data centres. Instead, any AI developer can now train and run distilled versions of those LLMs locally on their laptops.
DeepSeek was the first AI company to show how powerful the process of distillation is in the context of LLMs. Other big tech companies are now jumping on the bandwagon. In early March, Google released a brand-new LLM called Gemma 3, a lightweight, state-of-the-art open-source model that can be run anywhere from smartphones to laptops, and has the ability to handle text, images, and short videos.
These open-source distilled LLMs are now being used by thousands of AI developers, in the UK and elsewhere, who are training and fine-tuning them using content, some of which may be copyrighted, publicly available on the web. Training an LLM on a laptop using data from the open web will become as commonplace as searching the web. This is already happening both within computer science departments in UK universities and in the rich ecosystem of AI start-ups and university spin-outs in the UK.
A survey of 500 developers and investors in the UK AI ecosystem, carried out by JL Partners last month, had 94% of them reporting that their work relied on AI models built using publicly available data from the web, and 66% reported that if the data laws in the UK were more restrictive than elsewhere, projects would move to other countries. We need to consider the impact on the UK’s AI industry of these transparency provisions, and of the requirement to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general-purpose AI.
The use of content from behind paywalls or from pirated databases such as Books3 or LibGen, which is known to have been done by Meta to train its LLM, is clearly illegal. However, for data publicly available on the open web, I would like to do a simple thought experiment to show that the transparency requirements in Motion 49A are at present unworkable. In the UK, unlike in the US, there is no copyright database. Usually, the copyright rests with the author of the work, but there are exceptions, such as when a work is created by an employee in the course of their job, and copyright may also be assigned or transferred to a third party. If we assume, generously, that it might take just one second, on average, to ascertain the copyright status of an article, book, image, or audio or video recording, on the web, it would require 31 years and eight months to check the copyright status of the 1 billion data points in a typical LLM training set—never mind thinking about setting up licensing deals with the millions of rights holders. For the distilled models that are now, as I explained, being trained or fine-tuned by UK developers, which are 100 times smaller, the copyright status check would still require one-third of a year—still an entirely unworkable proposition.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was IP Minister for nearly three years and I am a long-standing member of the APPG on IP. It is a great pleasure to speak from the Back Benches and to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Camrose’s amendment.
What concerns me is that we are witnessing an assault on a sector worth £160 billion to the UK, as we have heard. Actually, I suspect that may be an underestimate, because IP and copyright are to be found in the nooks and crannies of so much of our life and our industry. There has been a lot of mention of music and media. Nobody has mentioned breeding and performance data on racehorses, information on art and antiques, or—close to my heart—the design, by young graduates, of gorgeous new clothing and fancy footwear of the kind that I wear. It is the small operators that are most at risk. That is why I am speaking today.
We are going too slowly. Amendments have been knocked back. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been trying her hardest, with a great deal of support from right across Britain. As time goes by, AI and LLMs are stealing more of our creativity, hitting UK growth. I believe that the Government must get on. It is not easy, but it is a challenge they have to rise to, and very quickly.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion 49A from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will also address claims that we have heard repeatedly in these debates: that transparency for AI data is technically unfeasible. This claim, forcefully pushed by technology giants such as Google, is not only unsupported by evidence but deliberately misleading.
As someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts, and as a member of DACS—the Design and Artists Copyright Society—I have witnessed first-hand how creators’ works are being exploited without consent or compensation. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, in both his email to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs to the Secretary of State. Although I deeply respect their expertise and commitment to innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion-dollar tech corporations.
The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible have been thoroughly debunked. The LAION dataset already meticulously documents over 5 billion images, with granular detail. Companies operate crawler services on this dataset to identify images belonging to specific rights holders. This irrefutably demonstrates that transparency at scale is not only possible but already practised when it suits corporate interests.
Let us be clear about what is happening: AI companies are systematically ingesting billions of copyrighted works without permission or payment, then claiming it would be too difficult to tell creators which works have been taken. This is theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as inevitable technological progress.
The claim from the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups while sparing US technology giants is entirely backwards. Transparency would actually level the playing field by benefiting innovative British companies while preventing larger firms exploiting creative works without permission. I must respectfully suggest that concerns about potential harm to AI start-ups should be balanced against the devastating impact on our creative industries, thousands of small businesses and individual creators whose livelihoods depend on proper recognition and compensation for their work. Their continued viability depends fundamentally on protecting intellectual property rights. Without transparency, how can creators even begin to enforce these rights? The question answers itself.
This is not about choosing between technology and creativity; it is about ensuring that both sectors can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. Transparency is not an obstacle to innovation; it is the foundation on which responsible, sustainable innovation is built.
Google’s preferred approach would reverse the fundamental basis of UK copyright law by placing an unreasonable burden on rights holders to opt out of having their work stolen. This approach is unworkable and would, effectively, legalise mass copyright theft to benefit primarily American technology corporations.
Rather than waiting for a consultation outcome that may take years, while creative works continue to be misappropriated, Motion 49A offers a practical step forward that would benefit both sectors while upholding existing law. I urge the House to support it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, really has opened the floodgates to expressions of support for human creativity. I thank her for tabling her Motion. I also thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position and their support for the creative industries.
I suppose I straddle the world of AI and creativity as much as anybody in this House. I co-founded the All-Party Group on Artificial Intelligence and I have been a member of the All-Party Group on Intellectual Property for many years. That is reflected in my interests, both as an advisor to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation, and as the newly appointed chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I declare those interests, which are more than merely formal.
The subject matter of the amendments in this group is of profound importance for the future of our creative industries and the development of AI in the UK: the critical intersection of AI training and copyright law, and, specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described, the rapid development of AI, particularly large language models, relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training. This has brought into sharp focus the way copyright law applies to such activity. It was impossible to miss the letter over the weekend from 400 really important creatives, and media and creative business leaders urging support for her Motion 49A. Rights holders, from musicians and authors to journalists and visual artists, are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material to train AI models, often without permission or remuneration, as we have heard. They seek greater control over their content and remuneration when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater transparency.
Like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of this Bill in her tabling of a series of crucial amendments. Her original amendments on Report, passed in this House but deleted by the Government in the Commons and then retabled in the Commons on Report by my honourable friends, aimed to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of generative AI. The core argument behind Amendment 49B, which encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, is that innovation in the AI field should not come at the expense of the individuals and industry creating original content.
The central plank of the noble Baroness’s proposals, and one these Benches strongly support, is the requirement for transparency from AI developers regarding the copyrighted material used in their training data. Her Amendment 49B specifically requires the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out strict transparency requirements for web crawlers and general-purpose AI models. This would include disclosing the identity and purpose of the crawlers used, identifying their owners and, crucially, keeping records of where and when copyrighted material is gathered. This transparency is vital for ensuring accountability and enabling copyright holders to identify potential infringements and enforce their rights.
The Minister described the process in the consultation on AI and copyright, published last December. That consultation proposed a text and data mining exception that would allow AI developers to train on material unless the rights holder expressly reserved their rights or opted out. The arguments against this proposed opt-out mechanism are compelling; they have been made by many noble Lords today and have been voiced by many outside, as we have heard. This mechanism shifts the burden on to creators to police the use of their work and actively opt out, placing an undue responsibility on them.
This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively rewarding the widespread harvesting or scraping of copyrighted material that has occurred without permission or fair remuneration. The Government’s proposed text and data-mining exception, which it appears that they are no longer proposing—as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify the Government’s position and confirm that that is indeed the case—risks harming creative sectors for minimal gain to a small group of global tech companies and could erode public trust in the AI sector. As the noble Baroness observed, this approach is selling the creative industries down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency proposed by the Government are insufficient. Clear legal obligations are needed.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I shall make a very brief speech. I stood up when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stood up, but unfortunately, as so often in my life, he completely ignored me, so I will just slip in after him and just before our Front Bench. I declare my interest in the register as an adviser to ProRata.ai, which is a company that seeks to pay royalties to creatives for the use of their content in AI models. It was good to see not only the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, standing at the Bar, but also the Creative Industries Minister, Chris Bryant, which shows that something is up. They were very clearly wanting to be seen by the 400 or so creatives who wrote to the newspapers over the weekend expressing their concerns about the Government’s AI legislation and also to seek, as we all do, to curry favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led so well on so many of these issues.
As she was speaking and making the point that creatives and technologists are not apart at all, but are together, it reminded me that I became the Technology Minister in the Cameron Government because I was the Creative Industries Minister, and the reason I became the Technology Minister was because I was the only Minister in the Cameron Government in 2010 meeting the technology companies. The reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual property of the creative industries. At that time, in 2010, you would sit down with Google and say, “Anyone can search for any material on your website, come up with it illegally, stream it and download it without paying the creators of that material. What are you going to do about it?” Of course, they said, “We’re going to do absolutely nothing because you are just a little British Minister, and we only do what the White House tells us to do”.
The Labour Government had passed legislation that was concluded in the wash-up in 2010 that effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading music, just as perhaps some of us as teenagers might have taped music off the radio in the past. I knew when I became a Minister that that legislation was completely unworkable. It was pointless to be prosecuting teenagers when you should be taking on big tech. Actually, the music industry found a solution by using the Fraud Act and began to take action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP. It allowed courts to order those websites to be blocked.
I also knew that there would be no solution until there was a commercial solution. In fact, that commercial solution has come about. In 2010, people were predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the film industry and the death of television. They have never been healthier: there are commercial models because more people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify, Netflix or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price, so a commercial solution is possible when people work together.
It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the opt-out model because it implies that you can have a conversation between big tech and creatives. The creatives can either opt out or opt in. We referred earlier to licensing deals. If anyone reads FT Weekend—in fact, everyone in this Chamber obviously reads FT Weekend as it is the Bible of the chattering classes—Sam Altman from OpenAI was featured in “Lunch with the FT”, an honour he shares with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In fact, I texted her when she was in “Lunch with the FT” and said that it is better than a peerage. At the beginning of that lunch, it says that the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI, so it is possible to have licensing deals.
What I think none of us can really stand is the utter hypocrisy of people saying that, for the national interest, we have to rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You would not find a single tech chief saying, “I think it is fine if people take our patents because that is how you get economic growth. Just take my patent”. In fact, you will not find a CEO saying that. You will see them saying in court, “He’s ripped off my patent, and I want my money back”. That is intellectual property that big tech is prepared to fight for, yet big tech is still prepared to tell us, just as they told us 15 years ago, that they can grow only by ripping off the IP of the creative industries. Let us face it: there may be AI start-ups that need open source. I totally accept that. It is a complicated landscape, but we are still talking about big tech. We are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, xAI and Meta. We are talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again. This is where he could start.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many eloquent and well-made speeches. The Government share the passion displayed today. We all care about the creative sector and want to see it flourish. We all want to find ways to make that a reality. We are talking here about the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way; that is what we are addressing today. Nobody doubts the fantastic contribution that the creative sector makes to the UK. I thought I had set out some of that in my opening speech, but I am very happy to confirm it again.
On the practicalities, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, sets out wide-ranging obligations on businesses that make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce them. I agree with the noble Baroness that the creative sector has always been an early adopter of technology, and that the creative and AI sectors go hand in hand. A number of noble Lords made that point, and made it well.
I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators—again a point well made by a number of noble Lords—and their great cultural and economic contributions to society. The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about that.
It is the Government’s view—and, moreover, morally right—that creators should license and be paid for the use of their content. The Government have always been clear that we want to see more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, however, would affect a wide range of businesses and require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to identify individual works, but it is very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet that requirement when a significant proportion of material on the internet does not have clear metadata to facilitate this. The scale of the impact on those businesses is unknown but, without a proper impact assessment, there is a real risk that the obligations could lead to AI innovators, including many home-grown British companies, thinking twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services in the UK.
We agree that, if transparency obligations are to be created in this way, there will need to be provision for their oversight and enforcement, but that is not something that can be dropped on the first regulator that comes to mind. There is currently no body with the skills and resources to perform this function. We need a proper discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are required, and answers to a whole range of other questions.
It should also be noted that one of the main issues that creative industries are struggling with is enforcement of their rights under the current rules. As was said earlier—and I am happy to reiterate—we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken; at the heart of this is the question of enforcement.
Transparency would help with knowing what is being used, but that alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses seeking redress through our legal system. As many noble Lords will know, there are live court cases in train in the UK and other key jurisdictions. The Government, and I, recognise the urgency of the problem, as so fantastically put by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
This is why DCMS and DSIT Ministers are prioritising meetings with creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top priority. Indeed, they held meetings and discussions with both sectors last September. We have moved quickly to consult, having hosted round tables and bilateral meetings with creatives and their representatives. These have been of great value and we will continue to hold those meetings.
However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed as a full working approach. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, does not offer an instant solution, instead asking the Government to come up with regulations in 12 months. We cannot make such significant interventions without properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on four substantive issues within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. As I said in my opening speech, our proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses and, indeed, will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, the solution must indeed involve creators and AI developers being in the same room, and this is what we will endeavour to do.
I further agree with the noble Lord that AI should not become a way to whitewash copyright piracy. The Government support strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree that it is important to support transparency. I cannot say this strongly enough. Noble Lords have seemed to suggest that we are not taking that issue seriously. Of course we are. The Government fully support and are encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora developing new standards to help identify metadata, which will make this easier.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45.
“Economic impact assessment
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning
with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of each of the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) lay a document containing the assessment before Parliament. Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 7
(2) The document may include an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of policy options which are alternatives to the options described in subsection (1)(a).
(3) An assessment included in the document must, among other things, include assessment of the economic impact of each option on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the impact on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(4) In this section—
“AI system” means a machine-based system that, from the input it receives, can infer how to—
(a) generate predictions, digital content, recommendations, decisions or other similar outputs, or
(b) influence a physical or virtual environment, with a view to achieving an explicit or implicit objective;
“the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper” means the command paper “Copyright and AI: Consultation”, numbered CP1205, published on 17 December 2024;
“copyright owner” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“develop” an AI system means carry on an activity involved in producing the system, such as (for example) designing, programming, training or testing the system (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly); “digital content” means data which is produced and supplied in digital form; “medium-sized business” means a business with at least 50 but fewer than 250 staff;
“micro business” means a business with fewer than 10 staff;
“small business” means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;
“use” an AI system means instruct an AI system to generate outputs or to influence an environment (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly).”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 46.
“Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) such alternative options as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The report must consider, and make proposals in relation to, each of the following—
(a) technical measures and standards (for example, measures and standards
concerned with metadata) that may be used to control—
(i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers);
(b) the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by developers of AI systems (for example, on text and data mining), including the effect on developers who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses;
(c) the disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about—
(i) their use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) how they access copyright works for that purpose (for example, by means of web crawlers);
(d) the granting of licences to developers of AI systems to do acts restricted by copyright, including the granting of licences by and to individuals, micro businesses, small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consider the likely effect of proposals, in the United Kingdom, on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the likely effect on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(5) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard to, among other things, the Consultation Paper responses.
(6) The Secretary of State may comply with this section by preparing and publishing two or more reports which, taken together, satisfy the requirements in this section.
(7) In this section—
“Consultation Paper responses” means responses to the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper received by the Secretary of State on or before 25 February 2025;
“copyright” means the property right which subsists in accordance with Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“copyright work” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“web crawler” means a computer program that obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions and that can autonomously determine which websites to visit.
(8) Terms used in this section and in section (Economic impact assessment) have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.”
Viscount Camrose
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the Minister for her full and detailed answer. Having heard the tone of the debate, I think it is clear that the focus and energy of the House are more on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but I am happy to take up the Minister’s offer of a further meeting.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 47 and 48.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49.
Baroness Kidron
49A: At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of business data used in relation to AI models
(1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must by regulations make provision as set out in this section in relation to a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2), and in relation to a data holder for the business data of such a trader.
(2) The service has links with the United Kingdom if—
(a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market).
(3) A “data holder” for the business data of such a trader means—
(a) the trader, or
(b) a person who, in the course of a business, processes that data.
(4) The regulations must require specified business data to be published by the trader or the data holder so as to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(5) The regulations must require the business data to be published by the trader or the data holder in such form, at such intervals and in such manner as the regulations may prescribe, in particular so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.
(6) The regulations must require the trader or the data holder, when publishing the business data as required under subsections (4) and (5), to provide an effective mechanism to allow copyright owners to identify all individual works that they own that are used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(7) The regulations may provide that the regulations apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered.
(8) The regulations must require the trader, if bots are used in the making available of its AI model, to disclose information regarding the identity of such bots used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—
(a) the name of the bot,
(b) the legal entity responsible for the bot, and
(c) the specific purposes for which each bot is used.
(9) In this section “bot” means an autonomous software application that can interact with systems or users (including crawlers and fetchers) and which obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions.
(10) The regulations must make provision for enforcement of the regulations made under this section in accordance with sections 8 (enforcement of regulations under this Part), 9 (restrictions on powers of investigation etc) and 10 (financial penalties) of this Act as if this section were in Part 1 of this Act.
(11) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.””
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their fantastic contributions from all sides of the House. I say simply to the Government: I understand that they are trying to collect evidence, but the evidence is in front of their eyes that the wholesale stealing of UK copyright has gone on, is going on and will go on until we take action. I am afraid that a task force, a consultation, a review and listening is not adequate to the moment.
I will just push back on one thing: the Government did pick a side. They have forgotten that they had a preferred option for many months until this House spoke. So I ask all noble Lords, please, on whatever side of the House they sit, to show the creative industries that this House has their back. I wish to divide the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 50 and 51.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 52.
Viscount Camrose
52A: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 52, and do propose Amendments 52B and 52C to the words so restored to the Bill—
“(3) For the purposes of this section, sex data must be collected in accordance with the following category terms and definitions—
(a) “sex” meaning male or female only based on “sex at birth”, “natal sex” or “biological sex” (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably), and
(b) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, “acquired gender” meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.””
Viscount Camrose (Con)
A little time has elapsed since the original debate, but I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 53.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 54 to 74 and 79.
We all agree that tackling the abuse of intimate image deepfakes is incredibly important. I am delighted that these provisions are returning to this House, having been strengthened in the other place, enabling us once again to discuss this key issue. I extend my heartfelt thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her dedication on this issue. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick—who unfortunately is not in his place—and Lord Clement-Jones, and others who have generously given much of their time to discussing this issue with me. Their engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues has been instrumental as we have refined our approach to this important topic. It has been a fantastic example of parliamentarians working across the House to get policy in the strongest possible position.
At Third Reading I committed that the Government would bring forward further amendments in the Commons, including on solicitation and time limits. We have delivered on those commitments. I will begin with Commons Amendment 56, which introduces the requesting offence. This addresses the commitment made on solicitation. It replaces, but builds on and delivers the same intent as, the amendment that your Lordships made to the Bill. It comprehensively criminalises asking someone to create a deepfake intimate image for you without the consent of the person in the image or the reasonable belief in their consent. This is an offence regardless of where the person you are asking is based or whether the image was in fact created.
I turn to the commitment on time limits. Commons Amendment 63 was passed to extend the statutory time limit so that prosecutions can be brought at any date that is both within six months of when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge and within three years of when the offence was committed. This means that perpetrators will not get away with creating or requesting the creation of a deepfake just because no one knew about it at the time.
A further change was made in the Commons through Commons Amendment 55, to add a defence of reasonable excuse to both the creating and requesting offences. I know that this is likely to be the subject of much debate today, so I will spend some time setting out the Government’s position.
First, I want to reassure the House that the Government’s priority is to create comprehensive, robust defences which ensure that perpetrators cannot evade justice. It is not our intention that the defences provide defendants with a get-out clause, and we do not believe that they do so. This is especially important to stress for the creation of sexual deepfakes, which are so extraordinarily harmful. In our view, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a situation where someone creating a sexually explicit deepfake will be able to prove that they had a reasonable excuse. Indeed, we anticipate that the defences would apply only in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as for covert law enforcement operations.
It is also our view that, for a very small minority of cases, such as the creation of genuinely satirical images that are not sexually explicit, the defence to the creating offence is legally necessary for it to be compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Without the “reasonable excuse” defence, we consider that the creating offence will not be legally robust, and that any legal challenge to its compatibility with Article 10 is likely to be successful. This will not provide the best protection for the victims. Let me labour this very important point: our intention is to create comprehensive, robust offences that will ensure that those who create or request intimate deepfake images without consent, particularly sexual deepfake images, face grave consequences.
I also want to stress that abusers will not be able to evade justice by using spurious excuses. The defendant must provide enough evidence to prove that the creation, or that particular request, without consent was reasonable. They cannot just say it is art or satire without sufficient compelling evidence. It will be for the court, not the defendant, to decide whether something is in fact art or satire. From my many years as a magistrate, I can also reassure the House that it is simply not the case that a defendant can offer up any excuse and assert that it is reasonable. The CPS will challenge spurious arguments, and the courts are extremely well equipped and used to dealing with such arguments quickly.
The Government share the House’s desire to ensure that criminal law, and these defences in particular, work as well as the Government intend. I therefore speak to support the noble Baroness’s Amendments 55E and 56B, which place a binding obligation on the Government to review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence, for both the creating and requesting offences, by putting it in the Bill. As part of this review, we will carry out targeted engagement with external stakeholders and subject matter experts to ensure that we make a broad and informed assessment of the defence.
I hope this addresses the concerns about these defences. The best way to protect victims is to ensure that Parliament passes legally sound and robust offences that can bring perpetrators to justice. I urge the House to do that by supporting Motion 55C and Amendment 56B. I beg to move.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my amendments in this group. In doing so, I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its AI policy conference.
I start by thanking both the Minister and Minister Davies-Jones for taking the time to engage on this issue and for their endless patience. I know they have worked incredibly hard to secure progress on this and I am very grateful for their efforts.
We are down to the issue of whether we believe a person can have a reasonable excuse to create content that looks like a photograph or film of another person without their consent. Noble Lords will recall that this House overwhelmingly indicated that we did not believe “reasonable excuse” should be included as a defence and highlighted concern that it may be misinterpreted or viewed too widely.
I have concerns over the position the Government outlined in their letter from Minister Bryant to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Minister Bryant argues that the inclusion of “reasonable excuse” is necessary as, without it, the offence would breach the ECHR due to limiting a person’s freedom to create photorealistic satirical art of scenarios such as a person on the toilet or in boxer shorts. Additionally, the Government argued the need for tech companies to be able to red team against this offence.
I share the Government’s strong desire that we do not want this Bill to have a memorandum on it warning that it may breach the ECHR, however precarious the arguments laid out may be. I do not want those who abuse women in this way to claim the prosecution may contravene their human rights.
With this in mind, I turn to my first amendments, Amendments 55C and 56B, written in conjunction with the Government, which offer a review of the implementation of “reasonable excuse” for both the creation and requesting offences after two years. I am grateful to the Minister for the compromise. He will know the conflicts I feel about this issue and the great concern I have that, without guardrails, “reasonable excuse” may be used to allow those who abuse others in this sickening way to escape justice.
I know the Minister will offer me reassurance that the courts will be used to hearing precarious excuses. However, my concern—as noble Lords know—is that image-based sexual abuse has been consistently misunderstood, with the Law Commission itself only arguing three years ago that the harm from creating non-consensual sexually explicit content was not serious enough to criminalise. In 2023, Refuge found that, despite steady year-on-year increases in recorded offences for image-based abuse, only 4% of offenders were charged. Even when a conviction was achieved, only 3% of cases resulted in the perpetrator being deprived of the images used for the offence.
We have seen consistent failure by prosecutors to understand and tackle the issue. I therefore have a very real concern that, by allowing “reasonable excuse” to sit in this offence, we risk it being misunderstood and the offence being undermined. Further, while I am grateful for the offer of a review, I am worried that if after two years we find “reasonable excuse” is allowing perpetrators to evade justice, there will not be a legislative vehicle in which to correct the issue, and the time it takes to correct may be lengthy. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer me reassurance on this point.
Additionally, I am concerned by the very premise of the argument that legislation without “reasonable excuse” would breach the ECHR. I have sought the legal counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, KC—who apologises for not being here this evening—and he believes that the inclusion of “reasonable excuse” in the defence is not necessary in order to be compliant with the ECHR.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, advised, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights already highlighted in its letter, that
“the Government has stated that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure that an offence that could violate a qualified right under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it”.
Additionally, all legislation must, so far as possible, be read and given effect to in a manner that is compliant with the ECHR, according to Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. So, even if there were to be a prosecution in the sort of circumstances contemplated by the Government, the defendant could rely on their Article 10 rights, which means that an all-encompassing reasonable excuse is not necessary.
Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline to the House the reasons why tech companies cannot red team by prompting with the images of people who do consent and, therefore, not requiring a reasonable excuse, should their model fail and end up creating the content that it is trying to avoid. I would go as far as to say that testing prompts on a model using the image of a person who does not consent would be deeply unethical. It is my belief—and the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—that such specific examples do not justify general reasonable excuse. To quote my friend and human rights advocate, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti:
“Spurious ECHR arguments for weakening 21st century cyber sex offences do not help the cause of those seeking to defend human rights from its many detractors”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. We need to be crystal clear that we would not be here and we would not have come as far as we have—notwithstanding residual concerns—but for her work. Her entry into your Lordships’ House was greeted by the most shocking barrage of misogynistic innuendo and abuse, including from a septuagenarian, privileged veteran of progressive journalism who really ought to have known better. It was pretty ghastly to watch.
However, it has been a joy of equal measure to witness the noble Baroness’s response to her critics, and this has been the best kind of response. With her campaign—backed by supporters across the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supporters in civil society and the academy—she has made, in less than two years, a greater contribution to the most vital part of the legislative work of this House than many make in decades. Perhaps the young have something to teach their elders, after all, particularly about the new and all-too-lawless continent of the internet, which we have been discussing for some time today.
After nearly 30 years at the interface between criminal policy and the ECHR, I share the analysis of the harm caused by this 21st-century cybersex offence that has been offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. By contrast, I fear that Whitehall has displayed a breathtaking lack of empathy for the mostly women and girl victims of this conduct—a lack of empathy that, at times, verges on the obtuse. That has gone on for some years, as the noble Baroness indicated. It accounts for the time taken by the Government to agree to the offence being imprisonable, but I am glad that we finally got there.
Now, at the 11th hour, I too fear the sheer breadth of the Government’s reasonable excuse defence, which might drive a coach and horses through the protection. This kind of degrading conduct is no light-hearted matter. The creation of deepfake intimate image without a person’s consent is capable of destroying their dignity, mental health and life. More broadly, it is capable of changing the whole flavour of our society: in the classroom, in the workplace and wherever men and women rub along together. That is what is at stake.
“Reasonable excuse” defences are appropriate and necessary in the context of broad, strict liability offences capable of catching otherwise innocent behaviour. The classic example is the strict liability offence of being in possession of a blade in a public place. Without that “reasonable excuse” defence, any of us could be criminalised on the way back from the kitchen department at John Lewis, so there is an obvious reason for a reasonable excuse defence to that strict liability offence.
I put it to the House that we would not dream of a “reasonable excuse” defence for sexual assault. The offence requires intention, action and the sexualised aspect. Once these are established, there simply is no reasonable excuse. I believe that the creation of a deepfake intimate image is equivalent to sexual assault if it is without consent. I learn that the Government are concerned about freedom of expression in the context of creating deepfake intimate images without someone’s consent. Let us please remember that freedom of expression is not an absolute; it must be balanced with proportionate interference to protect the rights of others, hence laws against breach of copyright, child pornography and so on all over the world, including in the United States—famously, the land of the First Amendment.
I really must press my noble friend the Minister to explain in some detail—more than we have heard so far—why the tighter “reasonable excuse” defences from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, of red teaming and political satire do not do the trick? In other words, what are these other reasonable excuses for pernicious conduct of this kind? Why should there be any reasonable excuse for the solicitation offence? Where is the freedom of expression in soliciting that someone else creates the deepfake image?
I noticed the introduction of the concern about covert policing—I think my noble friend the Minister raised it—but surely he recalls the covert human intelligence Act, a very controversial Act of 2020 that I am still very concerned about, which allows the authorities to grant advanced immunity to people committing criminal conduct in the course of their covert surveillance. I am a bit concerned about that suddenly popping up as a reasonable excuse of government at the 11th hour on this offence.
Without further specifics, I am really concerned about the impression that the Government just do not get it, that they do not totally understand what is being perpetrated online and that they are not properly taking the protection of women and girls sufficiently seriously. I would really regret that. This is the coalface of human rights at this moment in the 21st century. I really hope there is still time for the Government to listen further to the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and think again.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said everything I was going to say and more and better, so I want just to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, and to say that I too have witnessed her forensic fight over the last few months. I hugely admire her for it, and I congratulate her on getting this far. I absolutely share all the concerns that both noble Baronesses have expressed. Just in case I do not have the opportunity again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extraordinary work and campaigning.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of non-consensual images, first with her Private Member’s Bill and then with amendments to this Bill. She has fought it with huge skill and determination, and, rightly, she has pushed it to the wire in wanting the most robust offence and tightest defences possible. I thank the Minister for his flexibility that he has shown so far—with the emphasis on “so far”.
The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward represent a compromise, given the strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General that the defence of “reasonable excuse” is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR and that, therefore, the whole Bill risks being non-compliant if that is not contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal brick wall, despite an excellent opinion from Professor Clare McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney-General’s case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of big tech companies to red team their models on images used without consent. That is a rather peculiar basis. Why cannot the big tech companies use images with consent? They would then be red teaming in a rather different and more compliant way.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I happened to be in the House when the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, was taking her Private Member’s Bill through, and I remember very well the reply given by my noble friend to her Bill. Therefore, it is a great achievement that this has become part of government legislation, but it is not complete. We have just heard my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti argue, and I can only adopt her words entirely, because she has always been a much better advocate than me, to persuade a very reasonable Minister—my noble friend has always been a very reasonable Minister—to acquiesce to this argument, notwithstanding the advice of the Attorney-General.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a commissioner at the EHRC, and I have also been a lifelong campaigner for and defender of free speech, so I do not approach this subject lightly at all. I have some sympathy with the Government’s position that a reasonable excuse is required to be compatible with Article 10. However, I think the definition being as broad as it is reinforces the worries of my noble friend Lady Owen and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
I was not really clear, and am concerned to know, as noble colleagues have already alluded to, on why the defence is drafted so widely. I was not sure whether this was coming from EU law and, if that were the case, I wanted to draw the House’s attention to the most recent EU directive on preventing violence against women and girls. If we look at that directive, in section 19, it has unequivocally decided that deepfakes should be criminalised and:
“Such production, manipulation or altering should include the fabrication of ‘deepfakes’, where the material appreciably resembles an existing person, objects, places”
and so on. I appreciate, of course, that we are no longer bound by EU law, but given that it will be applied by the ECHR, under which we still operate, it is interesting to note that in section 20 it has acknowledged the Article 10 obligation but has narrowly defined it.
I draw attention to this and ask the Government to take it into account and reassure this House that they will urge guidance to be issued, if this defence has to go forward as it is currently drafted, so that any reasonable excuse defence maintained in this clause is clearly confined by guidance issued as soon as possible by the CPS.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. Her amendments fall into two categories, and we support her in all of them. I start by joining the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others in paying tribute to her tenacity in pursuing this issue by standing up for women who should not have to live in the fear of becoming victims of sexually explicitly deepfakes. As mentioned, she has won the deep respect of this House and, at the same time won many, many friends from her action. The cross-party support that she has managed to gain from this shows this House at its best—a House of which I am proud to be a Member.
First, my noble friend has tabled reviews to ensure that the offence that is being created as a result of her tireless campaigning is effective. We support her in her Motion and agree with her that we must do everything we can to ensure that the law is robust and effective in protecting women. Secondly, like many others, I have been puzzled by the ECHR reasonable excuse approach being used by the Government. It was very helpful, as ever, to have experts on hand in this matter and my noble friend Lady Cash to bring her expertise and agree with the basic position that, while we understand it, it is very widely drawn as it is currently set up.
I think it is very sensible what my noble friend is trying to do in seeking to tighten those definitions of reasonable excuse and remove reasonable excuse in the case of requesting sexually explicit deepfakes in her Motion 55A and Amendment 56A. I completely understand why she has brought them, and, while they would appear to be instead of the reviews, which we also support, we feel that my noble friend is right to challenge the inclusion of reasonable excuse as a defence to these offences. On that, she has our complete support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments, particularly those in favour of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 55, the creating offence, which seeks to replace the “reasonable excuse” defence with the creating offence, with a targeted defence for red-team software testing and reasonable political satire. We share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that any defence to the creating offence functions tightly and share her belief that only in narrow and limited circumstances would a person have a reasonable excuse for the creation of such images without consent. That is how our reasonable excuse defence will apply in practice, which is why the Government believe that the defence is the right way forward.
However, we are unable to agree to these targeted defences that the noble Baroness proposes to the creating offence in place of a reasonable excuse defence. This is a novel offence, tackling behaviour that is changing rapidly along with the technology itself. We cannot anticipate all the ways in which people will use technology as it develops. A defence of reasonable excuse which, as I have said, we believe will be interpreted very carefully by the courts, will ensure that the offence can be used effectively to target culpable perpetrators, even as technology and its uses change. The targeted defences proposed by the noble Baroness would also, crucially, not eliminate the risk of successful legal challenge, which I explained in my opening speech. Even with such targeted defences, the creating offence risks successful challenge in the courts, leading to uncertainty and reduced protection for victims.
I turn briefly to Amendment 56A on the requesting offence. As I have set out, the reasonable excuse defence to the requesting offence will only apply in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as covert law enforcement operations. The legal issue which applies to the creating offence does not apply to the requesting offence. However, we always aim for consistency and parity across similar offences and so urge this House not to pass Amendment 56A to the requesting offence. Also, without the defence that the Commons included for the requesting offence, law enforcement and intelligence officials may be unable to effectively carry out their functions.
We made a manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This legislation, as amended in the Commons, does just that. For the first time, there will be protection for victims and punishment for the perpetrators who create, or ask other people to create, intimate deepfakes of adults without consent or a reasonable belief of consent. These provisions represent an important and necessary response to intimate image deepfakes. The Government are clear that these offenses are comprehensive and robust. While a defence of reasonable excuse to both offences is necessary, it does not provide a get-out clause for the many perpetrators creating intimate deepfakes, especially sexual deepfakes, without consent. We remain firmly of a view that this is the most effective way to protect victims from this appalling abuse. It is our duty to act decisively. For those reasons, I urge your Lordships to support, with confidence, Motion 55C, containing as amendments in lieu Amendments 55D and 55E, and Amendment 56B. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to withdraw her Motion 55A and Amendment 56A.
The noble Baroness asked about deprivation orders. We share her frustration with this. The ability for courts to apply deprivation orders has been in place but these have not been used as extensively as they could be, so the judges are looking at sentencing guidelines to see how that lack of implementation of deprivation orders can be remedied. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked whether offenders of the requesting offence would also be deprived of images by the court. Yes, they would be. We want to ensure parity across the creating and the requesting offence, so that includes their computers and any images that are stored anywhere.
A number of noble Lords have expressed scepticism about whether the courts would adequately apply the reasonable excuse defence, which really is the nub of the issue which we are debating now. I have had this discussion many times with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, in private. I must say, as a magistrate for nearly 20 years, that we often hear completely ridiculous defences. It is certainly not unusual in magistrates’ court—or, I am sure, in Crown Court—and magistrates and judges are well able to deal with those types of defences. I know that the noble Baroness is sceptical of that, which is one of the prime reasons why we have put the review in the Bill. She will know it is very unusual for Governments to commit in a Bill to have a review, but it is because we understand that this is a new area of law and that the way we are defining “reasonable excuse” is a politically contentious area. I urge her to continue to work with us, which I am sure she will do in any event, and I urge her not to move her amendments to a vote. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 55.
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
55C: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 55, and do propose Amendments 55D and 55E in lieu—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”
“(9) The Secretary of State must—
(a) review the operation of subsection (7A),
(b) publish the outcome of the review in a report before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and
(c) lay the report before Parliament.””
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 56.
“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).
(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—
(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or
(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.
(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—
(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and
(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.
(6) An offence under this section is committed—
(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,
(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and
(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.
(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”
“(10) The Secretary of State must—
(a) review the operation of subsection (7),
(b) publish the outcome of the review in a report before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and
(c) lay the report before Parliament.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 57 to 79.
“(8) The “maximum term for summary offences” means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”
“66G Creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult: time limit for prosecution
(1) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, a magistrates’ court may try an information or written charge relating to an offence under section 66E or 66EA if the information is laid or the charge is issued—
(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge.
(2) A certificate signed by or on behalf of a prosecutor stating the date on which evidence described in subsection (1)(b) came to the prosecutor’s knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.”
“(3A) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, after section 177D insert—
“177DA Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences
(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).
(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 177C(3) (and section 94A(3)(b)(ii)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).””
“(3B) In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offences to be disregarded in reckoning whether an act is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence: England and Wales), after paragraph 38 insert—
“Sexual Offences Act 2003
38ZA An offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).””
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where a person commits an offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).
(4) A purported intimate image which is connected with the offence, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 153 (and section 157(3)(b)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).
(5) A purported intimate image is connected with an offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if —
(a) it appears to be of a person who was the subject of the request to which the offence relates (whether or not it is what was requested), and
(b) it was in the offender’s possession, or under the offender’s control, as a result of that request.”
“(d) section 141(3A) (amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006) extends to—
(i) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
(ii) the Isle of Man, and
(iii) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar;”
“(d) section 141(3B) (amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”
“(5A) The powers conferred by section 384(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (powers to extend provisions to the Channel Islands and to make provisions apply with modifications as they extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar) may be exercised in relation to section 177DA of that Act (inserted by section 141(3A) of this Act).”
“21A In section 170(2)(a) (unlawful obtaining etc of personal data), after “preventing” insert “, investigating”.
21B(1) Section 171 (re-identification of de-identified personal data) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(a), after “preventing” insert “, investigating”.
(3) In subsection (6)(a), after “preventing” insert “, investigating”.”
“(5) This section does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by this section).
(6) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, it may not surprise noble Lords that, before we start the debate on the first group, I again remind the Committee 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 that 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 previous two days in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding us of the importance of declaring interests in Committee if they have not been declared so far, but will he make a statement to the Committee about the Government’s plans for further consideration of this Bill, given that we were promised six days of consideration? We lost more than two hours last week through dinner-hour business, and today—for extremely good reasons—we have now lost more than five hours of consideration. I hope the Government have now decided that they must give this Committee an extra day, because we were promised six days and we have not had six days. I hope the Government’s intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night on Wednesday. This would not mean reasonable discussion of the 132 amendments that still stand to be debated in your Lordships’ Committee.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. We will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but there are six days and this is the fifth day. We want to make progress today and we want to complete Committee on the sixth day, which is Wednesday this week.
Clause 17: Landlords etc: financial penalties and offences
Amendment 145
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the normal standard of proof for civil cases for these fines and probes the Government’s reasons for applying the criminal standard of proof.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I want to make it very clear that we will not have had six days in Committee. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
I do not feel that I can open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this Bill and to the House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to his partner, his friends and his family for their loss. May his memory be a blessing.
This group follows on from a group on the previous day in Committee, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties. I will be brief, as on these Benches we simply have two questions for the Minister. I draw your Lordships’ attention to probing Amendments 145 and 152. We are concerned about the Government’s proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under Section 16 without proper due process. Can the Minister kindly set out for the Committee how this provision is intended to operate in practice, and whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process?
I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments—the selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of the Bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers in your Lordships’ Committee will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than I can. However, the question remains: why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation?
I appreciate that the Minister is herself not a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the Committee with a considered response, but can she kindly set out, either today or at a later stage, the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242 on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
First, I join my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook by expressing my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.
Secondly, I remind noble Lords of my own interest as a practicing solicitor.
These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the Bill. First, the removal of “reckless” would ensure that a landlord is guilty of an offence only if it can be proven that they wrongly relied on a ground for possession with actual knowledge of the offence. Secondly, the replacement of
“on the balance of probabilities”
with “beyond reasonable doubt” raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining a case.
I expect that the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that they would put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from the new system of penalties that will be imposed by local authorities.
There is also a legitimate question about how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases in which landlords are accused of an offence. We need a system that ensures that landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found guilty of an offence, even without their knowledge, will only add to the chilling effect of the Bill on our rental market.
I also agree that the standard of proof where a local authority is making a decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be high. Local authority officers should be absolutely sure when making these decisions.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision? Secondly, will she please answer the question about appropriate local authority resources to enable them to administer these offences?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I echo from our Benches the sincere condolences to Lord Etherton’s husband, Andrew, and their family. They really do have our most sincere condolences.
I also echo the concerns that were delivered in a rather measured way by my noble friend Lord Shipley regarding the way that things have gone along. I have also communicated that to the Minister.
We come to another key plank in the Bill, perhaps one less explored or spoken of but, in our view, massively important, that of enforcement. It is important to remind ourselves of the current state of affairs in the enforcement world, albeit very briefly, as this is not Second Reading. The reality is, as the noble Lord has just mentioned, that after decades of cutbacks, councils have gradually been reducing the number of staff in the areas of housing enforcement, decent homes and tenant matters. It is arguable that, as a result of this, they have failed over that same time to carry out proper proactive enforcement work, inevitably leading to more substandard housing, as, let us be blunt, the rogue landlords know they can likely get away with it.
The big change is, of course, Clause 107. It is an important section in the Bill and, in short, it very boldly states:
“It is the duty of every local housing authority to enforce the landlord legislation in its area”.
That is a very powerful change—it is not optional nor desirable, it is mandatory. The landlord legislation wraps up, of course, other requirements from other Acts, such as the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and various housing Acts. It is a real step change from the current situation and it cannot happen too soon.
However, our concern is whether local authorities are tooled up for this. Are they ready and will they have the right resources? This is not a blame game; it is the reality. The Bill, as we discussed in a previous group, allows for two main activities to fund their enforcement activities—civil penalty notices, as previously discussed, and rent repayment orders, which we will get to sometime later. The importance of these funding streams is why we opposed any reductions in the previous group and why we have amendments in the next.
The amendments in this section centre around the burden of proof that local authorities can apply when taking civil action. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we need to understand the rationale for using the criminal standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”, and vice versa—all the more so given the increased powers that are being granted under the Bill. It needs to be stated that there are many and they are quite complex. I confessed earlier that I am no lawyer, but even I could see that some of our officers might need to get their heads around some of these changes.
Given that I have argued previously that local authorities will need this money to fund enforcement activities, Amendments 145 and 152 seek to lower the burden of proof to
“on the balance of probabilities”,
thus making it easier for local authorities to impose civil penalties, whereas Amendments 197 and 200 seek the opposite.
I also note that in the Renters (Reform) Bill, Clause 15 had the higher proof. I look forward to hearing the reasoning as to why there has been a change. In short, these are legitimate questions. Consistency and clarity are essential and I look forward to the Minister’s replies, particularly on the notion of recklessness and the culpable mind in Amendments 242 and 148.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, may I say how sorry I am to have to deal with Lord Etherton’s amendments after his sad passing? I did not have a long time to get to know him, but during my time in this House, I truly appreciated both his engagement and his wisdom on this Bill and his courtesy and kindness. I know that he will be greatly missed by the House and I add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and his close friends and family. I understand that his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House, and we will all miss him. I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate on the amendments on financial penalties, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments on these. I will make the declaration up front that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice on this part of the Bill.
Starting with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment 145 would replace the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard of proof for breaches of the tenancy requirements which are not criminal offences. These breaches can, by virtue of continuing or being repeated, form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary, therefore, for the criminal standard of proof to apply.
Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”, where local authorities are imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences. Where civil penalties are imposed as an alternative to criminal prosecution, it is necessary for the same criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, to apply. That is already the case, for example, for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the Housing Act 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, and spoken to on his behalf today by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendments 197 and 200 would, conversely, require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.
The standard of proof is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other requirements introduced by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such, rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a £40,000 civil penalty, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 penalty. We therefore think it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of resources, and I will answer that with two points. One is that the Government have committed to assess the financial impact of this on local authorities, and have committed to new burdens funding. Secondly, those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose, or other purposes, if they wish to use them in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about appeals. Local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether, for example, the individual concerned was aware that the information they provided might be false or misleading, and if so, whether it was reasonable for them to submit it, or if they took an unjustified risk in doing so; that is the point about recklessness.
The legislation also provides safeguards. In the case of prosecution it would be for the court, not the local authority, to decide whether the accused had been reckless. In the case of a financial penalty, the landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, and a right of appeal against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.
Amendment 148 would narrow the offence of misusing a ground for possession to evict a tenant when possession would not be obtained on that ground. It would do so by removing the element of recklessness from the offence. Amendment 242 would narrow the offence of providing information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect in the same way.
To commit the first of these offences, a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord would be able to do so, it would not amount to an offence.
I do not think that limiting the offence in this way is necessary or helpful. Clearly, landlords should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord, or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf, knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession, would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.
Similar arguments apply in relation to the database offence. To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords to submit false or misleading information in purported compliance with database requirements.
It is well-established in legislation for offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used, for example, in relation to the provision of false and misleading information to local authorities in connection with their functions under the Housing Act 2004—an offence that is prosecuted by local authorities.
In short, we consider that the mental state of recklessness is appropriate to apply to these serious offences, so I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I am really disappointed because a number of noble Lords who have been involved in all these debates over the past four days in Committee are unable to be in their seats because of the later time of day. That will not help us scrutinise this Bill as we should.
I thank all those who have contributed on Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242, which are now in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords are absolutely right to highlight the issue of consistency —an issue we on these Benches intended to raise today —but my noble friend Lord Hunt also introduced an important new concern: the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. On matters such as these, it is vital that we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the Bill’s drafting, and I hope the Minister will seek the wise counsel of noble Lords such as my noble friend as these matters are taken back to the department.
As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the financial penalties under consideration are significant. Many landlords are small-scale or so-called accidental landlords, who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Committee seeks clarity on the methodology, consultation process and factors, such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds.
Given the scale of these penalties, the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined, and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without a sufficient burden of proof, and the legal argument underpinning these amendments. There is legitimate concern about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We therefore welcome these amendments and believe my noble friend Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake, a high level of rigour and certainty must be reflected in the legal standard applied. What is more, any concerns expressed on these matters should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully considered, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s willingness to recognise in law the close family ties many people have with their first cousins once removed and other removed cousins.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments I have tabled in this group are to probe the Government’s decision to define a family in the way they have in Clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the Bill state:
“Subsection (4) provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their death”.
The Bill defines a family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that the definition of a family in law reflects the family units we see in our day-to-day life. In many tightly knit communities across this country, families still live close together, with many cousins, both near and distant, having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step in to help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the Bill.
It seems strange that the Government would seek to recognise the relationship between two first cousins but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might, because of their close family ties, help a family member out as their guarantor, but the Bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the Government have defined the family in this way? Will she also explain why a second cousin who acts as a guarantor for their family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared with their other closer cousins? We are also interested in the case of smaller families, where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but who in reality is their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of “family” in the Bill. We understand that, but we need an explanation about why this definition of the family is being proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while it is understandable that some individuals have close bonds with more distant relatives, extending the definition of “family member” to include removed or second cousins could complicate the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions, which currently offer a clear and practical framework. Broadening the definition further could introduce uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike, potentially leading to disputes over familial links and undermining the protective aims of the clause.
For those reasons, we do not support these amendments but look forward to getting on to the next group of amendments, where we believe that the issue of guarantors will become less important if a certain amendment is accepted, therefore diminishing the need for this debate.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, but I want first to express great sympathy to the husband of Lord Etherton.
It seems entirely sensible to widen the definition of family within the Bill to include first and second cousins. I cannot see any reason for refusing that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to guarantors and family members, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for contributing to the debate.
Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of “family member” used in Clause 21 to include the grandchildren of aunts and uncles as well as siblings of grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability for rent owed after a tenant had died when they acted as guarantor.
I understand the noble Baroness’s motivation in probing this definition of family. She sometimes accuses me of not listening, or of not thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these provisions. They protect bereaved guarantors from financial hardship while allowing landlords to keep guarantors in place where it is reasonable to do so.
The definition of “family member” reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors. While we understand that more distant relatives than those covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay any family links between relatives who are not included within that definition—some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that.
It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantors liable in these scenarios is already uncommon, and most landlords would already act compassionately towards a deceased tenant’s family. Furthermore, by removing fixed terms, a personal representative of the deceased tenant can end the tenancy by giving a landlord two months’ notice. We believe that this strikes a balance that is fair to tenants, guarantors and landlords alike. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I do not think that we have quite got to a better understanding of the Government’s reasons for defining a family in this way; it is just that they are going to define a family in this way.
I point out once again that many families are of different shapes to the one described in the Bill. We feel strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins were. We have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins. We feel that the Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties as other members of the family.
We reserve the right to come back to this on Report, but we hope that Ministers will listen to the argument that we have made today and consider improving this part of the Bill to properly reflect the family relationships that many people have in in this country. At this point, I beg to leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more, (c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—a“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy;a“guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;a“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;a“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 265. Both amendments aim to strengthen the very welcome anti-discrimination provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to colleagues who have added their names and to Shelter for its help.
Amendment 170 sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor, a practice that has increasingly become a precondition of a tenancy for certain tenants—namely, those in receipt of social security, black renters, women, families and disabled renters—and one that could therefore be used as a way of circumventing the Bill’s anti-discrimination clauses.
The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the government amendment in the Commons which will prevent landlords demanding multiple months’ rent up front. To quote Independent Age, which is among the many organisations supporting our amendment,
“this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem (excessive rent in advance demands) only for it to be replaced with another (excessive reliance on guarantors)”.
Already, over the last five years, 550,000 private renters were unable to rent a home that they wanted because they did not have a guarantor that met the landlord’s requirements.
I know and respect that the Government do not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether, and my noble friend the Minister explained why in her helpful post-Second Reading letter. However, the amendment would not do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord could not ask for a guarantor, and those circumstances reflect the National Residential Landlords Association’s guidance on appropriate guarantor use—that is, where a tenant cannot prove that they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research by Shelter has shown that in practice guarantor requests often do not follow that guidance. Thus, the amendment is not radical but merely serves to ensure that guarantors are used as intended.
The case for ensuring that the use of such requests is limited is a strong one and is very much in line with the aims of the Bill. First, as noted already, it would help to safeguard the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures. Requests for a high-earning or home-owning guarantor are too often used in a discriminatory manner. Renters who receive social security, have a disability or are members of a racialised minority are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. Similarly, as Independent Age notes,
“requiring a guarantor can be a way for landlords to discriminate against older renters”.
Secondly, and related, the groups most likely to face a guarantor request are also those least likely to be able to meet one. Some 45% of benefit recipients and 43% of families struggle to provide a guarantor, compared with just 24% of those not receiving benefit or without children. The NUS believes that the amendment would make a huge difference to student renters, especially working-class, international, estranged or care-experienced students, who are likely to face difficulties finding a suitable guarantor. Become has highlighted the problems finding a guarantor faced by care-experienced young people more generally; its FoI research found that only around two in five local authorities provide a guarantor scheme for them.
Thirdly, in practice, fewer than 3% of landlords have attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the past two years. Moreover, insurance offers a sensible option for covering that risk.
Fourthly, the argument that the unfettered freedom to request a guarantor provides an essential lifeline for tenants with poor credit and/or problem debts is, Shelter argues, “a disingenuous one”, because there is evidence that landlords already avoid such tenants because of the manner in which tenant referencing is done. Those are not the tenants who are most likely to be able to find a suitable guarantor.
As well as the Renters’ Reform Coalition, of which Shelter is a member, and Independent Age, those calling for limitations on the power to require guarantors include the Mayor of London and Unison. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be willing to discuss what is possible between now and Report and that if she cannot accept this amendment would consider proposing an alternative. Otherwise, I fear that some of the good intended by the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures will be undone in practice.
Amendment 265 would repeal the right to rent provision introduced in the Immigration Act 2014. It requires landlords, including those taking lodgers, and letting agents to check prospective tenants’ immigration status to confirm they have the right to rent in England before granting a tenancy. Letting a property to someone without the right to rent can now be punished with a fine of up to £20,000 or a five-year prison sentence.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation.
There is a growing use of guarantors in the PRS. Generation Research last year found that 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 had been asked to provide a guarantor. Requesting a guarantor is clearly being overused and is moving towards becoming standard practice. Moreover, a guarantor in many cases has proved to be unnecessary. Shelter found that only 2.9% of landlords attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the last two years, despite its estimate showing that 1.85 million renters had been asked to provide one. Guarantors are overused, unused and inherently discriminative, and make renting unnecessarily burdensome. Where a renter can prove through an affordability assessment that they can pay their rent, a guarantor should not be asked for.
Amendment 170, or one like it on Report, is a necessary addition to the Bill. Will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider this amendment favourably or bring one very close to it back on Report? Will she also consider developing national guidance for fair and proportionate referencing? Although we may talk about this tomorrow, will she also consider adding information on guarantors to the private rented sector database?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to which I have put my name, along with Amendment 265 from my noble friend Lord Tope. As the two previous speeches have explained, the amendments attempt to ensure that the dangers of discrimination are not unintended consequences of the Bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity—the abolition of Section 21—we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not simply rise in its place.
Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a simple piece of standard referencing—a lifeline for vulnerable tenants—but in reality it is quite the opposite. It adds a significant and often insurmountable hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically imposed in addition to demanding a deposit, the first month’s rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment. Landlords already possess simple tools to assess a tenant’s ability to pay and to mitigate potential financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rent, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to narrow the pool of renters.
The demand for guarantors is an unnecessary additional hurdle that disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low-income backgrounds, those without family support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi households in particular and, most shockingly, people with disabilities. A renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be asked for a guarantor, and a black renter 66% more likely. This is not a lifeline for the vulnerable; it is more like drowning. Independent Age tells us that this is a problem for older people, too. An older renter who can perfectly afford the rent, secure in their pension income, has recounted facing questions about their income and being asked for a guarantor.
A self-employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with universal credit, was asked for a guarantor with an income of £45,000 per annum. That is £15,000 above the UK median income. And there will be people, of course, who do not know someone with that level of income.
Throughout our debates, we have heard much about arrears, sometimes as if the problem is endemic. However, government statistics state that 2% of private rented sector tenants reported being in arrears in 2023-24; even the English Housing Survey put it at around 5%. While that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore need a guarantor.
Amendment 170 seeks to bring sense and proportionality to this practice. It does not ban the use of guarantors; it simply and reasonably restricts their use to circumstances where a prospective tenant cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, so ably put it, over the most recent two-year period, only 3% of landlords have attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant’s guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has proved much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify against non-payment.
The Government have rightly listened to calls to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackle one form of financial barrier used to exclude tenants, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply switching tactics—which I think is the greatest fear of noble Lords who support this amendment. Without this amendment, there is a significant risk that limiting rent in advance could inadvertently lead to an even wider reliance on guarantor requests, thus undermining the Bill's anti-discrimination provisions.
This amendment is a sensible, proportionate step that ensures landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, while protecting vulnerable renters from being unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the Government will consider and adopt this amendment or agree to discuss a possible alternative.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 265 and, in speaking briefly on it, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the way she introduced both Amendment 265 and 170, which I also support, although I did not have the opportunity to add my name to that one as well.
First of all, I declare an interest a co-president of London Councils, which is the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. I am also, inevitably, a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I think the point has been very well made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I do not want to repeat the arguments at this time of night—although I would very much like to have done so. Instead, I shall ask the Minister one thing. I hope, in a minute, she is going to say that the Government are going to take this opportunity to repeal that part of the Act and, I hope, support these amendments. If she does not, however, I say that it is widely agreed, and indeed has been agreed by a High Court judge, that the right to rent is discriminatory. Therefore, can the Minister give us any evidence that it has had any effect in actually reducing illegal migration? Has it achieved its purpose in any way? If it has not, in its 10-year life, why on earth are a Labour Government keeping it in this Bill when they have the opportunity, in this legislation, to remove something that is both ineffective and discriminatory?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Shipley might have said, and with apologies to Robert Frost:
“I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep”.
My promise was to support Amendment 265. I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would be as thorough as ever. When she started to say the word “efficacy”, I thought it was going to turn into “ethics”—but maybe that as well.
I simply want to record my support. However, given today’s White Paper, I do so without much expectation, as has been the case so often in the past on this issue. Nevertheless, my enthusiasm for the amendment is entirely disproportionate to the time I have taken— I promised it would be within a minute, and it is.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
We have heard some compelling arguments from across the House on the very important issues here. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for her cogent and careful explanation of the reasons for bringing forward her amendments.
The issue we are addressing today is of great importance, particularly given that the Bill removes the options for tenants to pay rent in advance. Furthermore, the Minister has declined to support our amendment, which would have allowed for an arrangement between two consenting adults to agree on such a payment structure. This is a missed opportunity. Although His Majesty’s Opposition have not tabled an amendment to this group, we share the serious concerns that have been raised and I will try not to repeat the many arguments that have already been made.
Unfortunately, the Government’s proposals, in their current form, appear to pay little more than lip service to fairness. In practice, they fail to provide meaningful protection to those most at risk of exclusion from the rental market. Let us be clear about the deficiency of Amendments 170 and 265: they specifically prevent landlords requiring a guarantor in a wide range of circumstances, yet there remains ambiguity as to whether the amendments would still allow landlords to accept a guarantor if offered. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for being very clear that they could still accept it, but that does create some ambiguity.
While we recognise that requiring a guarantor can be a significant barrier for many prospective tenants, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, the guarantor system serves a legitimate function where it is used proportionately. It can provide a safety net for tenants with limited financial histories, such as students, individuals supported by local councils or those whose circumstances might not meet the traditional expectations of landlords. However, the Government’s approach to rent in advance is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. If tenants are not allowed to offer rent in advance as an alternative to a guarantor, we must ask: how will the Government ensure that fair and proportionate mechanisms are put in place to assess risk?
The private rental market is not a one-size-fits-all model; it encompasses a diverse range of tenants, from students and graduates to care leavers and older renters. How do the Government plan to accommodate those who may not have access to a guarantor but are still financially reliable? Crucially, where does the space exist in this framework for discretion, mutual agreement and choice between two consenting adults—tenants and landlords?
Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s proposed power to allow insurance-based alternatives to guarantors raises significant concerns. Can the Minister say how accessible these insurance products are likely to be and what steps are being taken to ensure that they do not create another costly barrier for tenants? As it stands, the insurance model seems unlikely to provide a fair and proportionate solution to the challenges that tenants face. These are not abstract concerns: the provisions, as drafted, place undue strain on tenants and their families without achieving the balance that the Government claim to seek. Unless there are significant revisions, this issue will undoubtedly return with force on Report.
As has been mentioned, the Bill has generated substantial interest across the rental sector, with campaigns led by the National Union of Students being particularly striking. Students across the UK, especially those from marginalised and underrepresented backgrounds are sounding the alarm. Guarantor requirements have emerged as one of the most significant barriers to accessing stable, affordable housing.
As the NUS has clearly outlined, these requirements disproportionately affect working-class students, care-experienced young people, estranged youth and international students—groups already navigating considerable challenges in their pursuit of education. Many of these students face an additional hardship: they do not have a family member in the UK who can meet the often arbitrary financial thresholds demanded by landlords. As a result, they are forced either to pay up to a year’s rent in advance—an impossible ask for many—or to turn to expensive guarantor services. We now find ourselves in the deeply perverse situation where it costs more to rent a home if you are poor.
Guarantor requirements contribute to this divide, by insisting that students find someone, often someone who earns up to 80 times the monthly rent and is based in the UK, to guarantee their tenancy. We are systematically locking out those who cannot meet these criteria. No one should be denied the opportunity to pursue academic excellence simply because of who they know or, more importantly, who they do not know. This is why these amendments fail, why the NUS and student representatives worked so tirelessly to bring this reform forward in the other place, and why it is so vital that we do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers in this House.
I focused much of my speech on the barriers faced by students, but it is essential to remember that this issue also affects many other vulnerable groups, none more so than care leavers. I speak as an ex-leader of a council, where I spent much time trying to enhance the position of care leavers. Having already overcome considerable challenges in their lives, they should not face yet another hurdle in their pursuit of independence. How can we in good conscience expect care leavers to comply with a condition that they simply cannot meet on their own? This also demonstrates the complexity of the situation, as often, their local councils—including Central Bedfordshire while I was there—were often willing and keen to provide guarantors to ensure that care leavers were on an even playing field to those from better financial backgrounds.
As I have outlined, the restrictions on rent in advance and lack of objective criteria for when a guarantor is required will only entrench existing inequalities. Penalising individuals who may be financially reliable but lack family support or financial connections to meet the arbitrary thresholds demanded by landlords is unjust. This is not just an issue of housing, it is an issue of fairness, opportunity and basic dignity.
Housing is not merely a financial transaction, it is the foundation of stability, security and opportunity. When we deny people access to housing because they cannot meet arbitrary demands for a guarantor, we are closing doors not only to homes but to education, career advancement and future independence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation if they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. Earlier today, we heard a number of noble Lords admit that they were not lawyers. It is also unreasonable to expect every landlord to be a lawyer. Where the law is complex, we need to make it simple and easy to comply with. This is one of our major concerns with this legislation.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to listen to the voices of those most affected by these provisions—the students, care leavers and low-income tenants—and make the necessary changes to ensure that the Bill delivers fairness for all.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about denying people access to housing, including students, care leavers and people on low incomes. The fact that so little social and affordable housing has been provided over the last 14 years is a very strong reason why we are in the situation that we now are. That those people have not been able to find affordable housing is largely due to the housing policies of the previous Government. I want to put that on the record before giving my answers on my noble friend’s amendments.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her amendments relating to guarantors and the right to rent. I add my thanks to Shelter, which has provided so much advice and support during the passage of this Bill, for which I am very grateful. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jamieson, for their comments.
Amendment 170 seeks to restrict the circumstances in which a guarantor could be required by a landlord. I appreciate that underlying this amendment—tabled with characteristic clarity, commitment and compassion by my noble friend Lady Lister—is the concern that those who do not have access to a guarantor will find it more difficult to find a home in the private rented sector than those who can obtain a guarantor. I make clear to my noble friend and the Committee that our approach to this issue is underpinned by the need to provide tenants with the rights and protections that they deserve. At the same time, we wish to guard against any unintended consequences that may, for some tenants, make renting more challenging. I recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for many prospective tenants. The Government are clear that landlords should consider tenants’ individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seemed to indicate that there was some sort of compulsion for landlords to find a guarantor. If they wish to come to an agreement without one, they are more than able to do that. What they cannot do under the Bill is require significant sums of rent in advance. That is what was really discriminating against people. Those incredibly high sums of rent required in advance were making it difficult for people to rent.
However, it is important to acknowledge that, in many circumstances, the use of guarantors can provide landlords with the confidence to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to secure a tenancy in the private rented sector. This includes tenants with a history of rent arrears, people with incomes that fluctuate from month to month and those with no previous rental history—for example, students or young people moving out of home for the first time. Prohibiting landlords from accepting large amounts of rent in advance will benefit all tenants by giving them the confidence that the maximum financial outlay needed to secure a tenancy will not exceed the cost of a tenancy deposit and the first month’s rent.
The Government recognise that providing a UK-based guarantor may be difficult for some prospective students, including international students. Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords will continue to be able to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK-based guarantor with the alternative of purchasing rent guarantor insurance. The measures set out in my noble friend’s amendment would inadvertently risk blocking certain types of renter from accessing accommodation in the private rented sector altogether, despite the amendment’s honourable intentions.
Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s question on guarantors, the Government are clear that landlords should consider each prospective tenant’s circumstances individually, including when it is appropriate to require a guarantor. They should not apply blanket requirements for guarantors to all tenants. In response to her other question, the landlord’s database will act as a record of landlords and properties rather than of individual tenancies. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for landlords to record the risk-mitigation measures that they have put in place for a particular tenant on the database. She also made a point about guidance on guarantors. I will take that back to the department to consider further.
I assure the Committee that we have carefully considered the extent to which different practices act as barriers or enablers to accessing the private rented sector. That is why we are taking this action to limit rent in advance through the Bill. I am always happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, for all these reasons, I hope she will withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendment 265, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. Right to rent was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and—this is important—to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes by letting properties that are in very poor condition indeed. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators and we all have a shared objective to drive them from the market—I think everybody around the Chamber would agree with that.
We have been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the right-to-rent checks is unlawful; the dreadful examples given by my noble friend illustrated that. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens, and I will just elaborate a little further on that. The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The very purpose of the statutory code of practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting checks recognises and seeks to address the risk of discrimination.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who spoke. I will not go into any great detail in response, given the late hour. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which was on whether the right to rent has had any effect in reducing illegal migration. I do not know if she would care to answer that question now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not have any statistics in front of me, but I will come back to noble Lords on that point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am grateful for the support that I received. I was slightly confused, I must admit, by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, because I was not sure whether he was supporting my amendments or not. He said that they were ambiguous, but I think his approach was perhaps a bit ambiguous—and I cannot resist pointing out that right to rent was introduced by his Government, and we are now saddled with it.
I am disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, that my noble friend said that there is no plan to be shot of it especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in the light of today’s White Paper. It is not exactly conducive to it, but it is important still to come back to the point.
I was also a bit disappointed that my noble friend did not feel able to give a bit more on the question of guarantors. She said that the proposed amendment would inadvertently block certain groups and could have unintended consequences. Everyone who spoke to this amendment accepted that it may be that it is not quite right, but that it is aiming to do something that in fact supports what the Government are trying to do.
Although she very kindly said that she is willing to discuss it, I did not get the sense that there is a willingness to discuss it in terms of perhaps bringing forward a government amendment that would achieve what we are trying to achieve but without the unintended consequences. Given the late hour, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 22 apply to joint tenancies as well.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there are four amendments in this group relating to Clauses 22 and 23 on notices to quit, so I wish to move Amendment 171 and speak to Amendments 172, 174, and 175.
The background to these amendments has been raised by front-line advisors of Citizens Advice. I thank them for their contribution to our consideration of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns that they have expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice that tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice that they had been served using the new, no-fault grounds 1 and 1A.
It may come as a surprise to some to realise that, in joint tenancies, one tenant can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint tenants knowing that this has happened. Tenants remaining in the property might not know that a notice has been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a notice to quit. This would put the remaining tenants in a very vulnerable position, at risk of homelessness and liable for court costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy unilaterally—I accept that—but a mechanism is essential to ensure that all joint tenants are notified.
Similarly, while it is welcome that the Bill provides for reduced notice by agreement between landlord and tenant, it should be stipulated that this is only where all joint tenants agree in writing. Otherwise, there is a risk that a departing joint tenant and their landlord will agree to bring a tenancy to an end very quickly, potentially without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms of the withdrawal of notice, there is a similar problem. In theory, one joint tenant could issue a notice to quit, and the other joint tenant and the landlord could agree that it will be withdrawn. The solution is to require that the agreement of all joint tenants is needed for the withdrawal of a notice.
There is a further issue when a tenant serves notice, but when the other tenant would have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known notice was being served. This happens most often when joint tenants go through a relationship breakdown and the tenant who leaves serves a notice to quit, sometimes with the intention of harming the remaining tenant. Yet the remaining tenant could have gone to court to get an injunction to prevent the departing tenant from serving the notice to quit, allowing time for the tenancy to be transferred to them under family law. The remaining joint tenant would then retain the security of tenure and not be made homeless. It is important to note that many of these cases involve children.
When a tenant receives an eviction notice based on the new no-fault grounds 1 and 1A, they must still give two months’ notice, even if they need to leave the property before the expiration of the eviction notice. Yet in a fast-moving rental market, tenants often have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before their eviction notice expires; tenants may therefore face having to start a new tenancy before their current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. There would be a new deposit, a first month’s rent, and often household bill costs on the new property, while also paying rent and household bills on their current home. This creates a very high-cost burden for tenants and can push those on a lower income into significant debt or put them at risk of homelessness if they cannot cover these costs or find a property with an aligning tenancy start date. This issue will be amplified with the Bill’s increase in tenant notice from one month to two.
This group of amendments would, first, require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant giving notice, that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy will come to an end on a specified date. We should note that this amendment reflects the notification requirements of Section 130 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.
Secondly, the amendments would ensure that a tenant’s notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn, through agreement with a landlord, only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.
Thirdly, they would allow withdrawal of a tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt a notice to quit with an injunction.
Finally, they would reduce the notice a tenant must give to one month when notice has been served to them on grounds 1 and 1A, which would give much-needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to many low-income renters.
I hope the Minister will give due consideration to those issues, which I think are very important. I have learned a little about joint tenancies that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration and detail to this so that, on Report, we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that have been identified.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.
I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.
I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.
I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these amendments to the Committee. As we on this side have consistently said throughout, we support the Bill’s overarching aim to create a fairer and more secure private rental sector. However, if it is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way that people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, as we have heard, whether between couples, friends or flatmates. However, as currently drafted, the Bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly when one party wishes to leave.
Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the Bill. Without this clarity, both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity, with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice.
Similarly, Amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending a joint tenancy. This is a matter not just of legal process but of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown or changes in household arrangements, while landlords should not be left in legal or financial limbo.
In that context, it is right to raise the issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using all or even part of their space, subletting enables the more efficient use of underoccupied homes. This is particularly important in areas facing acute housing shortages, where every single room matters. Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes or simply avoid exiting a tenancy altogether. It can help maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves out, by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover, subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affecting the rental sector. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants’ incomes and introduces much-needed flexibility into an often rigid system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments, which relate to tenants ending an assured tenancy and joint tenancies. In doing so, I thank him for raising the very important issues brought to him by Citizens Advice, which has been in touch with the department as well. I thank Citizens Advice and all the other stakeholders for engaging with our officials on these issues. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for their comments too.
Where a joint tenant has served a notice to quit, Amendment 171 would require any agreement to a notice period of less than two months to be with not just the landlord, as the Bill requires, but with all other joint tenants as well. Although I genuinely think there is merit to this approach, I am cognisant of the potential impacts on tenants who do not wish to inform their co-tenants that they are leaving. There may be a number of reasons why that might be the case. We would need to give very careful consideration to any change in this direction, to make sure we understand any impacts that it might have. We are currently working through that.
Amendment 172 would allow a tenant to provide only one month’s notice to end an assured tenancy if the landlord had already provided a notice of their intention to seek possession using ground 1 or ground 1A. The Government understand that tenants may find new properties to let within the four-month notice period the landlord has given them, and that market pressures would mean that, ideally, they could go when they need to. However, it is right and fair that tenants provide landlords with the usual two months’ notice so that landlords have sufficient notice, as they may need to change or alter their plans as a result. We think that this strikes a fair balance. Tenants will benefit from slightly longer notice periods, and it is right that landlords can plan for the ending of the tenancy too. Nothing prevents the agreement of a shorter notice period. We expect that, in many cases, landlords will gladly facilitate a quicker end to the tenancy to allow them to sell or move in more quickly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised a number of questions around subletting. I will come back to her on those points.
Amendment 174 would require joint tenants to notify each other when serving a notice to quit an assured tenancy, and landlords to inform all joint tenants that such a notice has been served and to provide a copy of the notice. The Bill does not require joint tenants to inform each other when ending an assured tenancy. I understand the point that there is an inherent risk that tenants may not find out until late in the notice period that their tenancy is ending. However, at the moment, the Government are concerned about the potential impact—for example, on domestic abuse victims—of being required to inform the perpetrator that they are ending a tenancy, possibly in order to flee. On the balance of risks, we believe the needs of domestic abuse victims must be allowed to prevail, although I recognise it is a difficult decision and we are giving it further consideration.
Finally, Amendment 175 would require all joint tenants to agree to withdrawing a notice to quit. This amendment is unnecessary, as it has already been established in law that all joint tenants must agree to positively sustain the tenancy. It is very unlikely that a court would determine that a single tenant could unilaterally withdraw a notice to quit, because there is not the positive consent of all tenants. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, these are essentially probing amendments and I am glad that the Minister and her department have had discussions with Citizens Advice. I understand some of the points that she has made. To take up the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I think the aim is to avoid unintended consequences in a new Bill such as this. So it is important that all these issues are thought through and examined so that the best answer can be found. I hope it might be possible, between now and Report, for some of the issues that the Minister has raised to be looked at in detail. I shall look carefully at her response in Hansard to see whether there are ways in which some of the problems that have been identified, and some of the responses with perhaps unintended consequences that the Minister has identified, might find a solution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe why the government has sought to remove section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 176 and speak also to Amendment 177, in my name. Before I begin, I refer the Committee to my interests as set out in the register, as a farmer, landowner and residential landlord. In particular, I have a number of houses occupied by employees under assured agricultural occupancies.
These two amendments are probing amendments, intended to allow the Committee to understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the Bill operating and also to probe whether the impact of the Bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved. Before moving on to the detail of the discussion, I shall follow my noble friend Lady Scott, who on an earlier group underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees.
I have three herdspeople, and one relief herdswoman, who rise daily at around 3.30 in the morning to milk. Being a short walk from the herd and the parlour is critical to their employment conditions. Those herdspeople also take primary responsibility for animal health within the herds, as well as the linked young stock. Again, being on site is vital to allow frequent inspections of the animals to ensure that they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration in having employees on site and able to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes and so on.
In short, this may not be a matter of huge general interest, but it is critical to farming in general, and to livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on site for these employees. When they leave, it needs to be available for their successors. However, we must also recognise that farm workers may have lived for many years, and even decades, in a community, and that options for them to stay in the area even when employment ends are desirable.
Beginning with Amendment 176, my Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government have sought to remove Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely. Since the 1988 Act, it appears that agricultural occupiers with an assured agricultural occupancy are entitled to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the employment of the landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.
Omitting this subsection could mean that agricultural occupiers retain protection even after their qualifying employment ends. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention. The subsection may be being removed because it refers to fixed-term tenancies, which the Government are seeking to abolish in the Bill. However, in this case, it is linked to fixed-term employment. It appears that the Government may not have considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural accommodation linked to employment. I also ask what impact this will have on assured agricultural occupants in tied agricultural dwellings where, if they are no longer employed in agriculture, it may well be a breach of planning regulations.
Amendment 177 is a similar probing amendment. Ground 16, for recovering possession of an assured agricultural occupancy at the end of employment, was omitted from the Housing Act 1988. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice its implications have been rather limited, as departing employees often leave for other employment with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for quality rural accommodation tends to be unaffordably high for those working in agriculture.
In the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Government have continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment—or at least that is what I thought. On an earlier group, the Minister said that
“we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 859.]
However, it does not appear that ground 5A is applicable to landlords and assured agricultural occupants to ensure that houses can be recovered at the end of employment, as it is omitted as being a ground. I would be most grateful to the Minister if she could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural employers to recover vital accommodation at the end of employment.
These assured agricultural occupiers will also gain greater protection, given that grounds 2ZC and 2ZB are not available for use. I ask the Minister why the Government think this is appropriate. Why are agricultural landlords being treated differently from other landlords and are not able to regain possession of the properties after the landlord changes under Section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over a tenancy?
In a previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, argued for making grounds 2ZC and 2ZB discretionary. In our view, this introduction of legal uncertainty would make the complexity even worse. From my limited exposure to this Bill, I am not sure how easily anyone will be able to administer all tenancies captured by it without a law degree. This discretion may elevate that base level of expertise to actually practising at the Bar. Given that it is largely estate agents and land agents who manage tenancies, it is important to make the Bill’s provisions as clear-cut as possible.
I also ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the impact of this Bill on a particular practice that we believe will deliver unintended consequences. Many agricultural employers, when housing employees, have understandably sought to avoid creating assured agricultural occupancies by serving notice before a tenancy begins and classifying that tenancy as an assured shorthold tenancy. This allowed serving a Section 21 notice with certainty that the house could be recovered at the end of employment to ensure it was available for the next employee. As a consequence of this Bill, those employees or tenants will now gain what appears to be greater protection than originally intended. Would the Minister consider adding a provision to allow landlords and employees in this position to change the status of those tenancies, potentially to assured agricultural occupancies, before the Bill takes effect? I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 182. I am a great supporter of the policy of right to buy and right to acquire. I think it is one of the best policies of the past 50 years, making sure that people had investment in their communities and were able to determine exactly how different things in their homes looked. Basically, it made sure that we had a greater proportion of owner-occupiers.
During my time as a Member of Parliament, I had not realised that, in effect, there had been discrimination against people living in the countryside. I discovered this when busily propagating some of the latest policies that my party was putting forward and had it said to me very squarely on a doorstep in a particular housing estate in Rendlesham in Suffolk. I was told that I was doing a load of good, but, frankly, it meant nothing to them because they had already tried to acquire their housing association home and had been told that they could not.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—not, I am afraid, in support of it. Is it fair that tenants residing in rural properties should have different treatment from those in the rest of the country? I have been responsible for a number of rural housing schemes—indeed, I recently chaired the Devon Housing Commission, looking at the issues facing communities in Devon—and I suggest that there are a number of reasons why it is fair to treat tenants in rural areas rather differently from those in the rest of the country.
First, it is much more difficult if a property is sold and therefore does not come back for reletting. We now know, Right to Buy being a matter of history, that after a period you will not get the relets, the opportunity for more people to enter those properties, in the years ahead. It is more difficult to replace properties in a village than in a town. If we lose the six houses that we have built in that village, they are gone for ever. It often takes years to acquire a site, convince the parish council and deal with the landowners. It takes a very long time to get those six homes built and we do not want to lose them if we can possibly help it, because in the future we will regret that.
My second reason is that the amount of social housing—housing association and council housing—in rural areas is appreciably less than in the rest of the country. It is about 11% for areas classified as rural locations compared with 17% for the rest of the country, including the rural areas, so there are already signs of acute shortage of affordable social housing in many areas, and we cannot really afford to lose what we have.
The third reason is that most of the developments in rural areas, or village areas, are small developments, and there is therefore no requirement to do affordable housing—to have a proportion of the homes that are available at subsidised low rents—so most of the development that is going to happen in rural areas, being less than 10 homes, is not going to have any affordable housing attached to it. We have to hang on, if we possibly can, to the properties that we have and then relet them later on.
My fourth reason is that, as the noble Baroness said, prices are higher but wages are lower. It is much more difficult in rural areas for local people to find any housing other than social housing that they can genuinely afford. There are the retirees moving in—in the case of Devon, from the south-east very often into the south-west. There are more affluent commuters paying more than locals can afford on their salaries. There are second homes—we are going to be talking soon about short-term lets, Airbnb and holiday lets—so locals are priced out, and it becomes a precious commodity to retain those few rural social houses, so I am afraid that I am unable to support Amendment 182.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, these Benches recognise the vital importance of our rural and agricultural communities, who operate under the more specialised and long-standing tenancy agreements. Such tenancies often span many years, involve successive generations and reflect a connection between the land and those who work it, going well beyond the norms found in other areas of the rental sector. We fully appreciate the challenges that tenants and landlords may face under those arrangements, particularly when legislation risks creating ambiguity or disruption.
When I looked at these amendments, it struck me that discretionary rather than mandatory powers would be a very useful thing to have, so it is hugely ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised my own amendments on this issue. I would have thought that a discretionary approach for any decision in the courts may well be useful in this context. However, while we are sympathetic to the concerns raised, that sympathy does not translate into ready support for Amendments 176, 177 and 182. It is our understanding that the Bill will not apply to residential property let under a farm business tenancy or an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy but will apply to any residential property on a holding that is subsequently sublet on what we now know as an assured shorthold tenancy, and it will in future have grounds for possession as set out in other parts of the Bill.
We also understand that a process will be in place for landlords to avoid inadvertently creating assured agricultural occupancies, and we fully back the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, as ever, with regard to rural communities and retention of, in particular, social housing. We believe firmly that local authorities know best and should be given the powers to make decisions over those social homes, with the right level of localism and autonomy. With that said, we look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response but remain unconvinced by these three amendments as set out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their comments.
I turn first to Amendments 176 and 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Amendment 176 seeks to reverse the Bill’s removal of Section 25(1) from the Housing Act 1988. The noble Lord stated that he is seeking to probe why we are making this change. The answer, I am sure he will be pleased to learn, is simple and straightforward. After this Bill is implemented, Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act will be a spent provision; that is to say, it will have no effect. That is because it deals with what happens when statutory periodic tenancies arise upon the end of a fixed term of an assured agricultural occupancy. Statutory periodic tenancies will no longer exist after the Bill is implemented, nor will fixed terms. Indeed, all assured tenancies, including assured agricultural occupancies, will be periodic tenancies. The provision in Clause 25 is purely a consequential amendment, tidying up this spent provision from the 1988 Act following our reforms.
Amendment 177 seeks to allow the eviction of tenants with assured agricultural occupancies under ground 2ZC. This would reduce the security that these tenants currently enjoy. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has highlighted that he is seeking to probe why the Bill is expanding the restrictions on when assured agricultural occupancies can be evicted. With respect, this represents a misunderstanding of what the provision is doing. Clause 25 contains technical and consequential amendments to the assured agricultural occupancy regime that aim to maintain the status quo in light of our reforms. It includes preventing landlords from evicting those tenants under the employment ground—now 5C—as well as ground 5A and the new superior landlord grounds. These grounds cover circumstances where tenants under assured agricultural occupancy tenancies cannot currently be evicted. They are being amended or introduced by the Bill, and, as such, may pose a risk to tenants’ security in the new system. Rather than expanding the restrictions on evictions for such tenants, this provision will broadly maintain the status quo. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, not to press his amendments.
Amendment 182, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent any secondary legislation laid under the power in paragraph 65 of Schedule 2 exempting the rural sector from the right to acquire—and, more widely, seeks to ensure that residents in properties in rural areas have the right to acquire. The provisions in paragraph 65 of Schedule 2 allow the Secretary of State to lay regulations specifying types of assured tenancies to which the right to acquire would not apply. This consequential amendment allows the government to consider whether any of the existing right-to-acquire exemptions that apply to assured shorthold tenancies should be transferred across to the new regime. The amendment from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent this power being used to exempt the rural sector from the right to acquire. Rural properties are currently exempt in designated rural areas, which are generally settlements with fewer than 3,000 people—the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the Devon Housing Commission, which he has ably chaired, and he has made me aware of the conclusions of that commission.
This is designed to protect affordable housing in areas, both rural and urban, where replacement is often not viable due to its high costs, planning restrictions or land constraints, for example, and it is necessary to ensure the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government have no plans to change this, although it may be helpful if I comment briefly on the right to acquire. To qualify for that, tenants must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant and occupy an eligible property. That applies whether they are in a rural or an urban area. However, there are important exemptions, such as those for the rural sector and for properties built or acquired by housing associations using their own funds. These restrictions aim to strike a balance between promoting home ownership and protecting social housing in areas or situations where it is most needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, reflected some of the reasons that might be the case.
The Government recently consulted on reforms to right to buy, seeking views on eligibility criteria, the minimum and maximum percentage discounts, further protections for new-build properties and replacement of the homes sold. That consultation closed on 15 January and we are considering the responses received. We will provide more information on the next steps in due course. Importantly, the right to acquire was not included in that consultation; the Government will consider whether any changes should be made to the right to acquire in the light of future changes to the right to buy.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Could the Minister address the situation where housing associations are selling off rural housing on the open market to the highest bidder, rather than to the tenants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We hope to provide more financial sustainability to housing associations through our funding mechanisms, which I hope will prevent them having to do that. The Government have no current plans to change the right to acquire. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, in particular to my noble friend Lady Coffey for her comments on agricultural tie dwellings. I am also grateful to the Minister for providing a very helpful clarification. The question mark remains about what happens to dwellings that have an agricultural restriction on them which are occupied by agricultural employees after they cease to be agricultural employees but may be protected in their tenancy under the Bill. I hope she might write to me on that but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
“13A In section 553 (effect of repurchase on certain existing tenancies (England)), in subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (a), omit the words “or an assured tenancy”;(b) in paragraph (b), omit the words from “or in accordance” to the end of that paragraph (including the “and” at the end of that paragraph);(c) omit paragraph (c).13B In section 554 (grant of tenancy to former owner-occupier), in subsection (3)— (a) omit paragraph (c) (and the “or” at the end of that paragraph);(b) after paragraph (b), insert—“(ca) an assured tenancy, or”.13C In Part 4 of Schedule 2 (grounds for possession: secure tenancies), in paragraph (1)(c), omit the words from “which is neither” to the end of that paragraph.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes further amendments to the Housing Act 1985 which are consequential on the changes made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This brings the wording into line with the definitions used in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
Lord Best
“Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
57A In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (enactments specified for the purposes of Part 1), in the suitable place insert—“Tenant Fees Act 2019 (c.4)””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment integrates the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It enables a Primary Authority to support local authorities to give assured advice to lettings agents on achieving compliance under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Providing this advice will support lettings businesses and reduce pressure on local authorities' enforcement teams.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute as well as of the Local Government Association.
Trading standards represent an important ingredient in achieving the objectives of the Bill: they are the front line in enforcement of key measures of good practice by property agents carrying out lettings activities. To assist local businesses of all kinds and the trade associations that represent and advise them, arrangements are in place for primary authorities—local authorities able to provide specialist advice on a range of consumer protection legislation. Primary authorities cover different aspects of property matters and support property agents, as well as their trade association Propertymark and the Property Ombudsman. These arrangements enable authoritative assured advice to be given to property agents, who can then rely on that advice in dealing with any query or dispute. It relieves local authorities’ enforcement teams from dealing with queries, complaints and misdemeanours that could be avoided if assured advice was available.
Demand for high-quality advice is likely to grow as a result of the Renters’ Rights Bill. More landlords are likely to make use of letting agents to ensure that all regulatory requirements are being met. The letting agents, in turn, need the best possible advice on the extensive legislative measures that affect their client landlords. A problem here, however, is that current arrangements for assured advice do not extend to aspects of lettings activities in the Tenant Fees Act 2019. This legislation bans agents from charging fees to tenants as well as to landlords. Since the introduction of that legislation, local authorities have been anxious for this area of letting agency work to be included in the assured advice arrangements.
This small amendment would mean that lettings advice covering the Tenant Fees Act, on which property agency businesses can rely, would at last be available, and that local authority enforcement authorities can act with confidence. It is an entirely helpful amendment in tidying up a piece of defective legislation, and it fully supports the objectives of the Renters’ Rights Bill. I am not expecting passionate expressions of support from lots of your Lordships for this somewhat technical amendment, but I hope the Minister will say that it meets with the Government’s approval. I am pleased to move it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I rise very briefly because I feel that this ties in quite neatly with his later amendments on letting agents becoming more professional and having better qualifications. Any means that will reduce the pressure on local authority enforcement teams are very much to be welcomed. The amendment is techy but simple, and I think it could be effective.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving this very sensible amendment, which is thoughtful and well-considered.
The integration of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, through Schedule 2, is not just a technical improvement but a step towards greater coherence and clarity in an already highly complex area of legislation. In a Bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks align and complement one another is not only sound law-making but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground. Was that passionate enough?
The practical implications of this amendment deserve the Committee’s close attention. In essence, it would allow primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help avoid confusion and ensure compliance from day one—a key goal for any regulatory change.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned, the amendment would also relieve pressure on local enforcement teams, many of which operate with limited resources, in both finance and capacity. By reducing their workload where possible, we enable these teams to concentrate on the most serious breaches—rogue landlords, unsafe housing and the exploitation of vulnerable tenants—where intervention is most urgently needed.
This approach is not without precedent. Organisations such as the Lettings Industry Council have consistently called for greater clarity, guidance and consistency in how regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the Tenant Fees Act into this structure directly supports those calls and shows that the Government are listening to those working on the front line of regulation and compliance.
We are, therefore, sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. It offers practical benefits to tenants, agents and enforcement authorities alike. We believe that it would contribute to a more effective, fairer and more streamlined regulatory environment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether it is because of the late hour, but my Whip, sitting on the Front Bench with me, just sent me a dancing emoji, as if to show me how to show passion when responding to amendments. I will do my best.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which would allow for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be included in the primary authority scheme. This would provide estate and letting agent businesses with the option to receive assured advice on complying with its regulations. The scheme allows the local authority nominated as a primary authority to provide assured advice to businesses that operate across multiple local authority areas, which helps those businesses comply with regulations. The scheme has the potential to streamline the interpretation of regulation for business. It can also be a more efficient approach to regulation for local government.
I welcome Members of the House sharing their views on this matter and we will undertake to consider this amendment further. For now, and for those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
I am much encouraged by that response from the Minister, and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Charities Act 2011
66A (1) The Charities Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 117 (restrictions on disposition of land: general), in subsection (2)(b)(ii), after “less” insert “or which are assured tenancies”.(3) In section 120 (requirements for leases which are for 7 years or less)—(a) in the heading, after “less” insert “or which are assured tenancies”;(b) in subsection (1), the words from "a lease" to the end become paragraph (a);(c) after that paragraph insert “, or(b) a lease that is an assured tenancy within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988.””Member’ s explanatory statement
This amends the Charities Act 2011 so that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to the requirements in section 120 of that Act.
(i) before the regulations come into force, or(ii) when or after they come into force under a contract entered into before then, or by the acceptance of an offer made before then.”Member’ s explanatory statement
This brings the wording in clause 32(5)(a) into line with the wording used in the new Part 2 of Schedule 6 which would be inserted by the amendment in my name.
“Restrictions on conversion of assured tenancies to short-term lettings(1) Where a property has been let subject to an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy at any time in the preceding three years, it must not be let as a short-term rental property within the meaning of section 228(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 unless a change of use has been permitted under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) as amended by subsection (2).(2) In Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764), at the end of part C insert—“Class C7. Short term rental property
Use of a dwellinghouse for commercial short-term letting, within the meaning of section 228(2) of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member’ s explanatory statement
This clause requires planning consent for assured or assured shorthold tenancies to be converted into short-term lettings.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for leading two groups of amendments in a row.
Amendment 185, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill that would require planning consent before assured or shorthold tenancies can be converted into short-term lettings. The definition of “short-term letting” is defined in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These lettings are often referred to as “Airbnb lets”, although several companies handle them.
I note that the amendment would not affect the letting of spare rooms to supplement the family income or temporary use of an owner-occupier’s home, when, for example, they are away on holiday. Instead, the amendment would cover the switching of privately rented properties from ordinary, longer-term lettings for those living and working locally to short-term lets for visitors. This phenomenon is having a serious impact on housing shortages in a number of tourist hotspots. In some places, the loss of PRS lettings has reached critical proportions, from seaside towns to national parks and historic cities. Appallingly, there are many examples of landlords serving notices to quit—thereby evicting tenants—so that long-established renters can be replaced with higher-paying lettings to tourists.
According to AirDNA, which tracks the lettings by Airbnb and similar companies, York saw an increase of nearly 30% in short-term lets in the city between August 2021 and August 2023. York now has more than 2,000 such lets. In Coniston, in the Lake District, 50% of homes are not lived in full-time. In the picturesque town of Salcombe, Devon, it is understood that around 40% of the accommodation now comprises second homes or short-term lettings; I commend the relevant section in the Devon Housing Commission report on that.
The switching phenomenon also has a particular relevance in London: a survey by the property consultants, Savills, found 117,000 homes listed for short-term letting on the Airbnb and Vrbo websites last year in just 12 London boroughs. The survey found that over half were let for more than the 90 days permitted in London and, in the central London boroughs, 40% of the private rented sector was let on a short-term basis. In many other European and American cities, action is being taken to address this problem. Indeed, Wales and Scotland have legislated to reduce the impact of losing homes for locals to rent.
In England, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 has provided the basis for a start to be made. The Act requires the Secretary of State to introduce mandatory registration for short-term lets. This measure would provide local authorities with an evidence base on which to decide whether the level of short-term lettings in their area should be restricted. Regulations under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act would prohibit the use of short-term lets of non-registered properties. Introducing registration would be a good starting point but, so far, no action has been taken.
In February 2024, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State, announced that the Government would be taking this issue to the next stage, using the planning system to control switchovers to short-term lets where the local planning authority deemed this necessary. To inform the details of this new regime, a government consultation considered the introduction of a new use class for planning purposes, enabling local authorities to refuse permission for a change of use from a long-term to a short-term letting. This consultation exercise produced near-unanimous agreement that such action would be an invaluable mechanism to discourage further expansion of the so-called Airbnb sector in specific places. The Government of the day pledged to take this forward at pace. Sadly, no action followed.
The previous Government reformed the tax regime for furnished holiday lets, and this has now come into force. The change removes a strong incentive for flipping properties from long-term to short-term letting, but the Renters’ Rights Bill may mean that more landlords are now being tempted to flip their properties, making the introduction of a new use class, which would enable councils to intervene, the more urgent. Amendment 185 is intended to provide the opportunity for the Government to progress the action needed to amend planning law by creating a new use class for short-term lettings, empowering each local authority to decide whether it is in the interests of their community to permit changes of use from long-term to short-term lets. The Minister for Housing and Planning in the other place, Matthew Pennycook, has demonstrated an appreciation of this issue and has promised to take further action—but when?
If the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, it would be helpful if she could update the Committee on the timetable for introducing first, the short-term lettings registration scheme and, secondly, the legislation to create a new use class for short-term lets. Action is overdue. I beg to move.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as mentioned previously in Committee, I declare my interest as a landlord and former long-term tenant in the private rented sector. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on short lets requiring planning consent for properties to be converted into short-term lettings. As your Lordships’ House would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made the case convincingly.
His Majesty’s Government should include this amendment in the Bill, because there is an undoubted link between the reduced availability of long lets, especially for local residents, and the exponential rise in Airbnb and other short-let platforms. A register, while welcome, will mainly chart the huge and expanding nature of this part of the PRS, which is already having such a deleterious effect on the provision of long-term accommodation for locals and their communities. The Minister may say this amendment is not a matter for the Bill, but it is. The Bill will accelerate the trends of short lets and reduce long lets unless amended. By introducing periodic tenancies with a minimum two-month notice period, it will simply introduce another class of short lets protected by law and destabilise the long-term lets market.
The PRS has not grown in the last nine years, as I mentioned previously in Committee. The Bill, by prohibiting upfront rental payments and fixed-term tenancies, will lead to evermore landlords moving to short lets. This trend is completely ignored by the Bill but will follow as surely as night follows day.
Tenants will be able to give two months’ notice on day one under the proposed legislation. Why should they do that? Because long lets are up to four times cheaper than short lets in, for example, the London Borough of Camden. Once tenants move in, the length of their tenancy will be impossible to police. If tenants move out after only a month rather than the minimum two, how will that be monitored and by whom? It will result in widespread short lets by the back door. A tourist could simply move into what was previously a long let, give two months’ notice and save thousands of pounds. It would just take a little fib on the part of the tenant.
A landlord will have no way of knowing a tenant’s real intentions under periodic tenancies, so will put up the rent, assuming that all long lets can become short lets. The distinction between short and long lets will disappear, with implications for rent levels. Neither the prohibition of mutually agreed fixed-term tenancies nor advanced rental payments were in Labour’s election manifesto, so I am at a loss to understand why these two essential measures to provide stability and certainty to the market have become non-negotiable. The majority of tenants want fixed terms, so I fail to see why HMG think they know better than the tenants themselves. Reducing the supply of long lets as ever more landlords gravitate towards more profitable short lets will mean that rents will assuredly go up, not down, and the losers will be the tenants, especially local residents and their sense of community.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned London and Devon. I have quoted before how some London housing blocks have become over 90% Airbnb or similar short lets. Local residents are squeezed out. Devon is a county I know well; I am a Devonian. The noble Lord, Lord Best, quoted the example of Salcombe, Devon’s answer to Saint-Tropez. Similar cases can be quoted throughout the West Country and Wales, including Cornwall. However, as the noble Lord said, it is not just coastal resorts and historic cities such as Bath, which I also know well, and York, that are affected. Areas around Birmingham have also become short-let hotspots.
Of course, it is not only the UK. Airbnb and the like have reached saturation point in Spain, in cities such as Barcelona and on Tenerife. It has become so bad, with locals priced out of accommodation, that tourists have been assaulted in restaurants and on beaches. As I mentioned, short lets are far more profitable for landlords than long lets. Airbnb and other short-let platforms are becoming increasingly dominated by professional landlords, as regulation is either non-existent or very light-touch.
By way of comparison, long-let residential property is already governed by 170 laws and regulations. The attractions for landlords to move to short lets is obvious and will be enabled by this Bill. Apart from the further regulatory and legal provisions in the Bill, long-let landlords will be asked by HMRC to make quarterly tax returns by April 2026, and new EPC regulations could cost anything up to £15,000 per property. Estate agents must report long-term rentals to HMRC in this country. Airbnb and the like do not, and I suspect that tax evasion is rampant.
Renting out flats or rooms on Airbnb or other short-let platforms undermines long-term rentals, legitimate B&Bs and smaller hotels, all of whom must pay taxes, abide by a host of regulations, employ local people and support local economies. With more and more remote professional landlords, Airbnb does none of that. The idea that Airbnb and other similar platforms allow a few grannies to innocently rent out their spare rooms is far from the true picture.
The impact of short lets is also pernicious. They undermine any sense of community, create nuisance for full-time residents and can be a security risk for blocks of flats, with Airbnbers having raucous parties and coming and going at all hours of the night and day. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, research has found that half of London’s 117,000 short holiday lets are being rented out illegally. In Westminster, where over 50% of residents live in rented property, council leader Adam Hug has said that short lets
“can hollow out long-term residents, making neighbours subject to significant noise disruption, fly-tipped waste linked to short-term let properties”.
In 2015, there were fewer than 30,000 short lets in London. This more than doubled throughout 2016, peaking at over 100,000 in 2019. As Tom Copley, Sir Sadiq Khan’s London Deputy Mayor for Housing, said,
“we need to bring those properties back into use as long-term rented properties or long-term properties for people to buy and live in as owner-occupiers”.
This Bill as drafted will legalise ever more short lets, as tenants will be able to legally move out of a property after just two months.
I had experience of an Airbnb rented flat in a block where short lets were banned under the lease. The owner was fully aware of this fact and kept denying the property was rented out on Airbnb, despite the property being advertised openly on the website. Airbnb takes no action in these situations. In our case, it took over two years for the owner to be forced to abandon Airbnb, despite his flat being the only short let in the block. People were coming and going every few days, and wear and tear on the communal areas and concern for security were considerable.
The only action which reined in the current leaseholder was a threat by the excellent managing agent to go to court to get him to forfeit the lease. HMG have previously said this option will be banned, so I wonder how such situations could be resolved in the future. I would retain the nuclear option of forfeiture but exclude it for death and other relatively minor transgressions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and want to add a very brief footnote to the two speeches that have already been made.
It is at times like this that we miss the contribution of the late Baroness Gardner of Parkes, who many of us will remember intervening forcefully whenever short-term lettings were mentioned, reminding us of the erosion of rented property in London, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned, some of the problems in large blocks of flats when short-term tenants cannot conform to the normal rules.
What we need here is a balance. There is a role for short-term lettings and Airbnb to play as part of a portfolio of opportunities in a coastal resort or, indeed, in a capital city. But what we have at the moment is a one-way street of erosion of long-term property for rent into short-term lettings. If we are to have a balance and get it right, it should be the local authority which should be in a position to strike that balance. I am sure the Minister, as a distinguished leader of a local authority, would agree that local authorities are best placed to do this.
I think I am right in saying that, until fairly recently, you actually needed planning permission to move from long-term to short-term letting, but, in a move to deregulate and make it easier to move from one use class to another, that requirement to get planning consent to move from one use to another was waived in the 2010 or 2015 Parliament, apart from in London.
It was retained in London, and only in London, where, if you want to short-term rent a property, you can only do so for 90 days—a rule that is ineffective unless it is enforced, and many local authorities find it difficult to enforce . What this amendment seeks to establish is whether the Government are minded to extend from London to other parts of the country that type of restriction to stop what is, at the moment, a one-way street.
I just add a rider to what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has suggested. If you need planning consent to go from long-term to short-term, I do not think you ought to need planning consent to go back the other way. In other words, it should be a hurdle to get over, but if you want to revert to long-term renting, you should not have to go through the process again. If one looks at various parts of the country, in some coastal areas, one in 10 homes are now short-term lets or second homes. Roughly 24 homes a day are being lost through this process, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the thrust of this Bill, and say that there are plans to give local authorities the powers that I think they need to get the right balance in the tenures in their area.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I live not far from Aldeburgh, not too far from Southwold, so I am very conscious of the issues that have arisen from people acquiring homes and then turning them into short-term rentals. It is a really important part of the coastal economy, but I would suggest in a different way that, in fact, the changes made to the tax situation, where it was possible to offset mortgages and all sorts of expenses, led to a significant increase in the price that people were prepared to pay for houses. I saw this in Southwold, where I got a lot of angry letters—admittedly from people who had done just this thing. What happened was that neighbouring houses that had been priced only a few years earlier at something like £300,000 to £400,000, were now selling for over £1 million. This was done on the basis of the short-term property rental that was possible.
However, what concerns me about this particular amendment is that it does not account for those people who are moving into a place to make it their permanent home. At the moment, this amendment suggests that, if it has been used at all for long-term tenancy, it should be excluded or need further planning permission. I suggest that there are plenty of people who are trying—whether in rural or coastal areas—to make their long-term home, but want to take advantage of the times when they themselves choose to go on holiday to be able to get some rental income. It is a perfectly sensible way, at times when people choose to be away potentially at the height of season, to gain that extra income. While I am sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I think that we need to explore what happens when the property transitions from one owner to another so that they can use their new family home in the best way possible, not only to enjoy that home but potentially to make sure that it gets used all year round.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and me. It has been explained very fully and in detail, so it needs no further repetition or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and various discussions or Oral Questions during House business, we are all only too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties from the long-term private rented sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
It is a fact that some communities—I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is important to keep a balanced perspective on this—are being hollowed out as locals cannot find somewhere to rent for the longer term, nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy. They therefore feel that they cannot remain in their communities. Some areas where short-term lets proliferate can, as we have also heard, be the result of regular antisocial behaviour, which can be of various types, from the very obvious noise nuisance to the degradation of neighbourhoods. Any moves to incentivise landlords back into the long-term private rental market are therefore welcomed by us on these Benches and anything to deter landlords from flipping, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will also be supported by us.
We recognise the willingness of both the previous Government and this Government and the difficulties of efforts to balance the needs of tourists, home owners and local residents. It is tricky, because balance is key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authority’s needs and circumstances.
To help local authorities, as we have already heard, there was the mandatory registration scheme proposed by the previous Government. That was very positive, as it would improve transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations. However, I note that, in parliamentary debates on the Bill, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the previous Administration’s proposals to clamp down on holiday lets
“did not go far enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters' Rights Bill Committee, 5/11/24; col. 238.]
and that his Government are considering what additional weight to give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures that they face, as a result of what have been called “excessive” concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes in some parts of the country.
To keep this brief and to sum up, it would be welcome to have, before Report, an update on the mandatory registration scheme and any other powers that have been taken forward on this Bill or in other legislation, including actions on companies that take no action, as was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. We could therefore judge whether this amendment is a helpful addition to take forward on Report or is completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for proposing this amendment. It raises a serious solution to one of the most acute crises affecting the private rental sector: the supply of housing. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. There is a fair degree of support for this from all sides of the Committee.
Noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that these Benches have been most concerned about. My noble friend Lady Scott highlighted the reduction in housing supply on the first day of Committee. Savills reported seeing a 42% reduction in the number of rental properties available on its books in the first quarter of this year. Data compiled for the National Residential Landlords Association found that 41% of landlords say that they plan to cut the number of properties that they rent out in the next 12 months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already falling.
TwentyEA found that the supply of properties available to let has dropped by 1% compared to the first quarter of 2024 and has plummeted 22% below the 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rentable homes are available nationwide—a decline of 18% from last year and 23% from 2019. In the first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes. This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period of 2024. Renting is no longer simply a transitional phase or fallback option for many people. It is a deliberate and legitimate long-term housing choice. Renting offers flexibility, mobility and freedom from the financial and practical burdens of home ownership, but tenants cannot benefit if there is simply not enough supply.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised, as did many others, the risks associated from the Bill accelerating this trend to short-term lets such as Airbnb and other types. This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would contribute to the solution. Where there is not enough supply of available rental accommodation and many landlords are planning to sell up, working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings could protect the currently available supply and hopefully prevent further reductions.
Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard their rental supply, especially in high-demand areas. This is especially true given the highly regionalised disparities in supply deficits of private rental housing. As the Bill goes forward, we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient capacity in their planning teams and, in this context, to consider whether licensing may also be an effective tool in this area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which seeks to restrict the conversion of assured private rental sector tenancies into short-term lets, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, for taking part in this debate.
The Government recognise that while short-term lets can benefit the tourist economy, they can also impact on the availability and affordability of housing, including in the private rented sector. I understand noble Lords’ frustration that little has been done to assess the impact of this as its development has accelerated over recent years.
As we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, we share concerns that landlords may be leaving the private rented sector to instead provide short-term lets. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, gave some figures about reductions in the rental market, but statistics released on 28 April from Rightmove’s rental tracker told a very different story. Its property site found that the number of new properties coming to the market in March was 11% ahead of the same period last year, while the overall number of rental properties is 18% up on 2024, just months before the legislation is set to come into force this summer, so there are differing opinions about the impact.
To address the issues that noble Lords have raised, the Bill includes a provision to ensure landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to return the property to a holiday let. As many noble Lord will be aware, we have also abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime. As a result of that measure, landlords will no longer be incentivised by the tax system to make their properties available as short-term holiday lets rather than longer-term homes for people who want to live and work in the area.
The Government will also introduce the short-term lets registration scheme, as legislated for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The scheme will collect crucial data on the sector and ensure that all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure that health and safety standards are met in their property.
With regard to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the reform programme and have set out how we are developing our approach in the impact assessment for the Bill. Our approach builds on the department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process impact and value-for-money evaluation in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. We are not going to just drop the Bill and leave it; we will continue to monitor the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked when the register will be operational. The Government are keen to introduce the registration scheme for short-term lets in England as soon as possible. The initial phase of digital development is now complete and public testing is planned to start in the next 12 months. During this next phase of work, we will test a working interface with a small number of users to make sure that the systems and processes are robust and effective before publicly launching a first version of the service. It is on its way; we have started working on it and will bring it forward as quickly as we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, asked a question about energy performance standards for the PRS and short-term lets. On 7 February this year, DESNZ launched a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector. The consultation includes proposals for rented homes to achieve an EPC C or equivalent by 2030. DESNZ is also seeking views on whether short-term lets should be included in the scope of these changes to help ensure a common standard across all private rented properties.
The proposed amendment seeks only to allow councils to place restrictions on the change of use from a private rental property to a short-term rental property and would not affect the change of use of owner-occupied properties. The amendment seeks to achieve this via a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. However, it would not have the intended effect, as the use classes order does not permit the change of use in the way proposed.
I assure noble Lords that we are carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets. However, I also recognise the complexities of introducing such restrictions, so I believe we need to explore the various potential levers that could help achieve that better balance that we all want between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I seek a point of clarification before the Minister sits down? If I heard correctly, she said that the legislation would come into force this summer. Does that mean that everything will be in place, including things like the database, ensuring that there is court capacity and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The comment related to the finishing of the Bill. There may be subsequent work to be done on it after that.
Lord Best (CB)
I am grateful to noble Lords around the Committee for their support for the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who emphasised the urgency of the situation, and the position in many other places—Paris, Barcelona, Menorca, Santa Monica —where other countries are getting ahead of us in taking action that we should probably learn from. He mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, the disruption to other residents that comes from short-term lettings, and the nuisance of parties, fly-tipping and security problems. That is not the main reason for the proposed amendment, but it is an important additional factor, which emphasises its importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that we must strike a balance between the interests of the tourism industry and the interests of those who are looking for somewhere to live—and the local authority is best placed to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was a bit worried about owner-occupiers being badly affected and not being able to let out their properties, when they were on holiday, for example. I think the amendment takes care of that; it certainly should. It is not the individual owner who lets out their spare room, or even the whole house, for a week or two that we are talking about here; it is the businesses that operate on some scale.
I am grateful to the CPRE, the Countryside Charity, for helping to formulate the amendment, and I give many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who made important points. We must protect the current supply of accommodation at a time when we are worried about the loss of any homes, which are badly needed. I will withdraw the amendment, but, as I do so, I thank the Minister for telling us about registration. I think that the timescale was that testing would take place for a new registration scheme for short-term lettings over the next 12 months, with a first version then being tried. It is all good stuff, but it sounds slightly slow—the “as soon as possible” bit was the best bit.
The Minister said that other solutions, alongside the possibility of introducing a use class that works—that must be part of it—were being considered. Pulling the right levers is obviously going to be important. Yes, the Government are prepared to do something, but they should take away the message that the speed at which it is done will be important too. We cannot let this fester much longer. With those comments, I beg leave—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The noble Lord referred to my comments. What I was doing was reading out his amendment where it says:
“Where a property has been let subject to an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy at any time in the preceding three years, it must not be let as a short-term rental property … unless a change of use has been permitted”.
I was trying to understand whether, when there is a change in ownership—not just any old renting out if somebody goes away—that would prevent a new owner-occupier being able to do what is suggested without planning permission. I was just trying to understand his own amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
I am grateful for that point, which sounds entirely valid. We may need to refine still further the amendment that we are all working on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(ai) after subsection (1) insert—“(1AZA) But that is subject to subsections (1ZA) to (1ZC).”;(aii) in subsection (1ZA), for “But in” substitute “In”;(aiii) after subsection (1ZB) insert—“(1ZC) Section 11 does not apply to a lease of a dwelling-house in England which—(a) was an assured tenancy immediately before the commencement date (which has the meaning given by section 146(3) of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025), and(b) was granted—(i) for a term of seven years or more, and(ii) by a person other than a private registered provider of social housing.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures than an existing assured tenancy of a fixed term of 7 years or more - which will become a periodic tenancy by virtue of the Bill - does not come within section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as a result of that change. Accordingly, repairing obligations will continue to be governed by the tenancy.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the new paragraph 3D inserted by clause 33(1) now referring to leases of more than 21 years (instead of 7 years).
“(2) In Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act, paragraph 8 (lettings to students that are not assured tenancies) is amended as follows— (a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) But that is subject to sub-paragraphs (2B), (2C) and (5) to (7).”;(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, specify as a body of persons—(a) the members, or(b) a class of the members,from time to time of a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (2).(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify a class of building, and(b) provide that a tenancy—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the dwelling-house is in a building of the specified class, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the dwelling-house is in a building of the specified class.(2C) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify a student landlord or a class of student landlord,(b) specify a class of building in relation to the specified student landlord or specified class of student landlord, and(c) provide that, where the landlord is the specified student landlord, or a student landlord of the specified class, the tenancy—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building.(2D) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2B)(a) or (2C)(b) may, in particular, specify as a class of building—(a) the buildings, or(b) a class of the buildings,from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (2B)(a) or (2C)(b).(2E) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2C)(a) may, in particular, specify as a class of student landlord—(a) the members, or(b) a class of the members,from time to time of a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (2C)(a).”;(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “the power conferred by sub-paragraph (2) above” substitute “a power conferred by this section”;(d) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(4) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) may make different provision for different purposes;(b) may make supplemental, consequential, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(5) The question of whether or not a tenancy is within this paragraph is to be determined by reference to the circumstances at the time when the tenancy is granted. (6) A change in the circumstances after that time does not affect whether or not a tenancy is within this paragraph, except in a case where—(a) the tenant is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house at a time after the tenancy was granted, and(b) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession—(i) condition A is met (see sub-paragraph (8)),(ii) condition B is met (see sub-paragraphs (9) and (10)), or(iii) both of those conditions are met.(7) In such a case, the tenancy ceases to fall within this paragraph (and accordingly this paragraph ceases to prevent the tenancy from being an assured tenancy) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession.(8) Condition A is met if—(a) the tenancy was granted by a body of persons who were, at the time of the grant, a specified landlord solely by reference to a code of practice, but(b) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, the landlord (whether that is the body of persons who granted the tenancy or a successor in title) is not a student landlord.(9) Condition B is met if—(a) at the time when the tenancy was granted—(i) regulations under sub-paragraph (2B) or (2C) were in force, but(ii) those regulations did not prevent the tenancy from being within this paragraph, but(b) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house—(i) regulations under sub-paragraph (2B) or (2C) are in force, and(ii) those regulations prevent the tenancy from being within this paragraph.(10) But condition B is not met in any circumstances that are specified, or are of a description specified, for this purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(11) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) “student landlord” means an institution or body of persons specified, or of a class specified, for the purposes of this paragraph (see sub-paragraph (2));(b) “housing management code of practice” means a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 (codes relating to the management of HMOs or excepted accommodation);(c) a building is “subject to” a housing management code of practice if it—(i) is a particular building subject to the code, or(ii) is of a class of buildings subject to the code;(d) a reference to—(i) a class of the buildings from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice, or(ii) a class of the members from time to time of a housing management code of practice,includes the buildings or members that are from time to time in a class provided for in the code of practice;(e) a body of persons are “a specified landlord solely by reference to a code of practice” if they—(i) are a member of a housing management code of practice that is specified by regulations under sub-paragraph (2A), and (ii) are not specified by regulations under sub-paragraph (2) as a body of persons otherwise than as a member of that code of practice.””Member’s explanatory statement
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988 provides for certain student lettings not to be assured tenancies. This amendment would enable the exemption to be limited to buildings of a specified class; and for regulations to operate by reference to codes of practice approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004.
Lord Black of Brentwood
“Discrimination relating to pets(1) A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on an agreement which may give rise to a relevant tenancy—(a) on the basis that a pet would or may live with or visit a person at the dwelling if the dwelling were the person’s home, prevent the person from—(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it, or(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make people who would have a pet live with or visit them at the dwelling, if it were their home, less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who would not.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the relevant person can show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or(b) the relevant person can show that the prospective landlord of the dwelling, or a person who would be a superior landlord in relation to the dwelling, is insured under a contract of insurance—(i) to which section 40 does not apply, and(ii) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy from having a pet live with them at the dwelling or to restrict the circumstances in which such a tenant may have a pet live with them at the dwelling, and the conduct is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.(3) Conduct does not breach the prohibition in subsection (1) if it consists only of—(a) one or more of the following things done by a person who does nothing in relation to the dwelling that is not mentioned in this paragraph—(i) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;(ii) providing a means by which a prospective landlord can communicate directly with a prospective tenant; (iii) providing a means by which a prospective tenant can communicate directly with a prospective landlord, or(b) things of a description, or things done by a person of a description, specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendments 192 to 196 and 198, which are also signed by my noble friend Lord Lexden and, with the exception of Amendments 193 and 198, by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I am very grateful to them. Given the hour, and as we are discussing animals, it is right to acknowledge that they are clearly night owls.
The purpose of the amendments is to insert a new clause to extend pre-tenancy discrimination protections to pet owners. In an earlier debate on this Bill in Committee, I set out why this legislation is so important and why pet owners need certainty and clarity about its application. These amendments build on that debate on a further, very specific issue.
Although the current version of the Bill provides protections after tenancy begins for pet owners, requiring landlords to consider pet requests reasonably, I am concerned that these are rendered ineffective if pet owners are excluded before tenancy agreements are even offered. As I have made clear before, I am delighted that the Bill rightly seeks to prevent pre-tenancy discrimination against tenants with children and those who are benefit claimants, but I believe these welcome provisions should also be extended to tenants who already own pets and are seeking a new place to rent. Currently, they are unprotected. Without such a measure, there is a real risk that landlords will automatically disadvantage or reject applicants simply based on the issue of pet ownership.
The truth is that pet ownership is, regrettably, already currently treated as a de facto disqualifier by many landlords. Applicants can be dismissed outright on the sole basis of owning a pet, with no requirement to justify the decision. This renders any post-tenancy pet consent rights in the Bill practically inaccessible for existing pet owners who are moving home, who are barred from progressing past the application stage in the first place.
As the Minister rightly highlighted during our debate last week, the pet provisions in the Bill are fundamentally based on the principle of reasonableness, and that is absolutely right. However, as it stands, a landlord is not technically required to consider in any form a pet-owning applicant and can reject them outright without appropriate safeguards in place. This creates a gap. Although existing tenants may benefit from protection, prospective tenants looking to move may not have the legal support to make a reasonable request to keep a pet at the point of applying for a tenancy. I fear this will continue to result in pet owners facing the heartbreaking decision of having to choose between a home and their pet, as many thousands of homes will remain closed to them.
The proposed clause, with consequential amendments, offers a balanced solution. It does not require landlords to accept pets unconditionally. Instead, it prevents landlords automatically rejecting applications on the grounds of pet ownership while retaining their ability to refuse consent on reasonable grounds after an application has been successful. That seems to me to be the right way to deal with this matter.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am glad, as always, to support my noble friend Lord Black, whose commitment to animal welfare is well known. His proposed new clause and his amendments in this group represent a further stage of his determined efforts on behalf of beloved pets and their owners. The principle underlying his proposed changes is simple: fairness in the rental market must apply at the first stage of the process, which is when an application is made for a tenancy.
As my noble friend pointed out, the Bill rightly prohibits pre-tenancy discrimination against those with children or in receipt of benefits. Similar protections should be extended to those who own pets, who at the moment face rejection of an application for a tenancy on that one ground alone. The new clause does not compel landlords to accept pets unconditionally; it simply introduces fairness by ensuring that applications cannot be dismissed out of hand just because a pet is involved.
As my noble friend has made clear, we need to bear in mind the terrible position in which the absence of fairness places pet owners at the moment. The heartbreak of being forced to choose between a home and a companion animal is one that no tenant should have to make. I hope the Government will give very careful consideration to my noble friend’s constructive proposals.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand Amendments 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to them, but I am grateful for the explanation that my noble friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk, I think it was back in March 2010, when I was looking for places to rent—not to holiday rent, but to rent properly as a home—had I not had my dog Rizzo at the time, more than 200 properties would have been available, but when it came to any landlord that would even encounter having a dog, the number was reduced to four, and this in an area of 300 square miles.
It gave me a clear insight into the restrictions placed on people who want to move with their family—and pets are considered often part of that family. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there was certainly a premium to pay, as a consequence of what property was available, for the opportunity to have Rizzo come and visit on a regular basis.
I was struck by one issue in the amendments that my noble friends have tabled, to do with mortgaged premises. I have been pretty horrified to learn, in the variety of casework that I have undertaken over the years, about the artificial restrictions placed on mortgages that people have taken up. They have simply told me, “I’m not allowed to do this”. I felt that this was too good an opportunity to miss; that is why I signed my noble friend’s amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, this is plain discrimination against people who have not yet been able to secure a home in a particular area. These are sensible additions to the Bill. I am aware that your Lordships have, overall, welcomed the opportunity to try to remove these exclusions on keeping pets in homes that people are renting. I hope the Minister will look kindly on these amendments to make sure that this part of the potential loophole is addressed and filled.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his amendments. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lady Coffey for their contributions, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who makes it very clear that we need to have a balance.
This group seeks to address the growing concern among renters, but we must also consider the valid and practical concerns of landlords. Although these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on pets in rental properties, it is essential to recognise that there must be legitimate reasons for any restrictions. Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we must also acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties. These are challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs and, as we have heard, the well-being of other tenants. A balanced approach is needed, one that considers the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners.
Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants. Allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies, leading to higher premiums or even exclusions in certain cases. These concerns are not trivial and must not be dismissed lightly, but rather addressed in a way that is both fair and proportionate. The amendment in this group recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
We on these Benches have made our position clear on previous days in Committee. We continue to advocate for a balanced solution that respects the needs of both tenants and property owners. Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, where tenants with pets are not excluded from their right to live in a home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.
Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.
However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.
Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Lexden, who rightly told us about the heartbreak that can follow when tenants have to choose between a home and a pet, something that happens far too often and which the Bill is determined to diminish. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey, who brought to bear her considerable experience and expertise in this area. We should take her comments very seriously.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that of course I understand the issue that arises from allergies; I am unfortunately allergic to pollen and there is little I can do to avoid it. She is right, and that is why we have to strike a balance. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, this is all about balance between the rights of tenants and those of landlords. I believe that these amendments strike that balance, which is why I tabled them.
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and her understanding. She has been very constructive throughout our Committee discussions on pets, and I thank her for that. When we last discussed these matters in Committee—last week, I think—she talked about some of the guidelines being drawn up to go alongside this legislation when it comes into force. It occurs to me that this might be one of those areas where there could be some form of guidance to landlords that would ameliorate some of the problems. If she would be happy to do so, perhaps she might look at that and talk to the various animal charities concerned; I know they would be happy to help. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would allow the landlord to invite any person to offer an amount of rent under the proposed letting value.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the Bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 199A tabled in my name. I wish to understand why, if a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the proposed letting value, the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a fair and beneficial outcome. If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high, allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one which benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets where negotiating powers often lie disproportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the Minister: did she consider this before putting it forward?
On these Benches, we recognise the difficult balance the Government are attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring that the proposed letting value reflects proposed market conditions. Market conditions are, of course, determined by the supply of homes and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to remain in the sector to provide the housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to our intention to oppose the question that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill. The rent-setting process must be transparent, and must be free to function. We should not pretend that we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well-resourced housing market. We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these Benches are committed to working with the Minister to that end, but I first ask her: has she considered whether these measures may in fact obscure the true demand within the rental sector? Understanding that demand is key to delivering the right supply and the right homes built in the right places.
Further, has the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent control units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education, thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies, we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally, I wish to probe whether the Government have fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared with existing tenants. No one on these Benches doubts the Minister’s intentions; we simply fear that the department has not paused to fully reflect on these key issues.
I turn to Amendment 199B, also in my name. I will cheekily anticipate that the Minister may say, in response to this probing question: “Yes”. The Bill attempts to define the term “relevant person” in Clause 58(6) but, before the Minister reaches that definition, I wish to question its adequacy and its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Further, how is the term “acting indirectly” to be interpreted? Does this include property agents or other advisory parties? Crucially, what is meant by “purporting to act”? I am sure that those with legal expertise in this House will argue that this is a loaded term that depends heavily on interpretation. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding of it and, importantly, explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured.
Clause 58 represents a significant shift. With that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordships’ House to understand the Government’s thinking more fully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in these amendments. Two different things are going on here, one of which is not allowing the market to work. I am trying to understand what evidence there is to suggest that this is a real issue.
I will give a personal story. When at university, a group of us wanted to rent a house. Under the rules of the university, you could live only at a certain distance, and so on. Not wanting to take a 12-month tenancy, we were particularly attracted by and sought out houses that would require only a nine-month tenancy. The landlady we were involved with used to make considerably more rent in the summer through tourists and short-term lets, but also gave students the opportunity not to take on the liability of the year. That helped keep rents relatively low. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine that such a scenario, while it may seem niche, was still very important to students at that time, and so was the availability of houses reflecting that opportunity. In effect—this is nothing to be embarrassed about—we gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra bedroom. It also gave a little more rent to the landlady, which was a factor when, I was led to believe, 46 groups went to see that house wanting to secure the tenancy.
While I completely understand some of the intentions of this clause about not getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised, given the real scarcity in certain parts of the country of private sector rentals, as to why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord to accept only the rent they advertise and not be creative about the situation in which prospective tenants may find themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for contributing. I will respond to the two probing amendments in a moment. First, however, I will set out to the Committee why I consider her fundamental objection to Clause 58 —which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding wars—to be misplaced.
The measures in Clause 58 will require landlords and persons acting for them, for example letting agents, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property. Landlords and those acting for them will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. To respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, these are not rent controls—the landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, but they cannot then increase that rent as other bidders come along. Currently, too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the lettings process. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of thinking that you have found a property at a rent that you can afford only to discover that the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more. Their experience is not that of a viewing but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear and our measures will end it for good.
This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. However, we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond what many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts an incredible financial strain on them.
I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week and I heard that, in some parts of London, a house in the private rented sector will cost a public sector worker 94% of their salary just to pay the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process.
Amendment 199A would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the stated rent. If this amendment were taken forward, landlords would fall foul of the rental bidding provisions only if they accepted rent at a level above the stated rent, not if they invited or encouraged its payment. While I welcome the scrutiny—and I genuinely do—of our rental bidding measures, I am concerned that this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue to be practised. Under this—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Sorry. While we are talking about this, does the Minister not think that what could happen—and what may happen—is that the level of rents will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to go for the absolute maximum they can? Is that not a danger?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous day. This is not intended to be rent cap; it is intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they think they can achieve for that property and, once they have advertised it at that price, they will not be able to increase that rent when things subsequently come along.
Under this amendment, a landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the advertised price, take the property off the market and then use any bids received to establish a higher price at which to relist it. I think that would start to have an inflationary effect on rents. I am not suggesting that this scenario would be commonplace, but it would be lawful and, if it were to occur, it would clearly be to the detriment of prospective tenants. I therefore consider that our belt-and-braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right one and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Finally, Amendment 199B seeks to remove
“by any other relevant person”
from the definition of “stated rent” in Clause 58(4)(b). As I have explained, the rental bidding clauses prevent a landlord, or person acting for them, inviting, encouraging or accepting an offer of rent higher than the “stated rent”. The term “stated rent” is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written advertisement, either by the person who is now doing the inviting, encouraging or accepting of higher offers or, as the case may be, any other relevant person.
A “relevant person” could be either
“the prospective landlord, or a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord”.
The latter would usually be a lettings agent, but it could also be a more informal relationship such as a friend of the landlord. It is necessary for us to avoid a loophole whereby, say, the landlord publishes the advertisement containing the stated rent and then asks his friend or letting agent to carry out the rental auction.
As such, the Bill is drafted deliberately to ensure that the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord who publishes the advert and then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to not press this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, and for the insight into this issue from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. On these Benches, we recognise the challenging balance the Government are seeking to achieve: protecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent increases, while also ensuring that the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market.
These market conditions are of course shaped by the availability of housing, and any rent-setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for landlords to stay in the market and to continue providing the homes that our communities so urgently require. I thank the Minister for her answers, but I urge her to truly reflect on the points that we have raised, to carry them back to her department and, if necessary, to come back with her continued engagement with the House.
This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly political; it consists of serious and practical probes into serious and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants, we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities so badly need. These are concerns that many landlords share, and we believe that they must be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. We ask them to go back to reflect on what we have brought forward. I ask the Minister to step back and consider any unintended consequences of this part of the legislation—or, at the very least, to acknowledge the genuine concerns of those who oppose this part of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, which rightly brings the issue of abandonment to the attention of the House tonight.
I wish to be brief, but I will take the opportunity to pose several questions, so that the Minister can set out the Government’s position. The Government are correct to note, in their Explanatory Notes, that Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which sought to address the recovery of abandoned properties, has never been brought into force. However, in light of the significant changes now proposed to the grounds for possession, I ask the Minister: have the Government sought to revisit this? With the departure of Section 21 and the insistence that landlords must rely on specific grounds for possession, as outlined in Schedule 1, what options are available to a landlord if a tenant abandons their property?
I would welcome clarity on several practical matters. For example, is there a requirement for specific types of evidence of abandonment, in terms of format, scope or detail? How many attempts must a landlord make to contact the tenant? I understand that this may appear later, but, as the Government have refused to implement these changes gradually, these really are burning questions.
Next, with no distinct legal ground for abandonment, how does the Minister propose to ensure that landlords understand how to use grounds 8, 10 or 12, which appear to be the only potential avenues in such cases? Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the current average wait time for a court order in such circumstances. What, if anything, is being done to address the underlying causes of tenant abandonment?
I fully recognise that this issue extends beyond housing policy alone. However, ensuring that tenants are able to remain in their homes, and feel secure in doing so, is not only beneficial to them but vital to the health of our wider society and economy. In connection with this, I also ask: from the landlord’s perspective, how is one expected to assess the risk of a tenant returning after a property is believed to have been abandoned?
It appears there is currently no specific legal ground for possession on the basis of abandonment. While the Minister may point out that the incidence of abandonment is low, this is not a justification for leaving the issue unaddressed, particularly now, when the framework for possession is being overhauled. Getting abandoned properties back into the rental market will allow others to benefit from that tenancy and a tenant who has abandoned a property to not accumulate further unpaid rent.
I ask whether the Government gave any consideration to amending Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act, especially in light of the proposed removal of assured shorthold tenancies, which Part 3 originally referenced.
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide clarity and, where necessary, commit to reviewing this area further. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister stands up to respond, I just make the point that it has gone midnight. We did not start consideration of Committee until 8.30 pm. That has meant that people have gone home without putting forward their amendments, and there has not been proper scrutiny on the last few groups. The Committee has done amazingly well to get as far as it has, but it has now gone midnight. I do not know if the Whip intends to resume the House.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will resume the House at the appropriate time. This is not the first time where debates have gone beyond midnight: on day 1 of Report, the Great British Energy Bill went to 1 am. I do not intend to take this much further. I want to stop at Amendment 206, which is another two groups, and then that will be it. Hopefully, we will be finished very shortly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The reason we are on the penultimate group is because people have not been in the Chamber to move their amendments in Committee. There have been very short debates in Committee, and some very important groups in Committee have just been glossed over—that is my point.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As I said, I want to get to Amendment 206. There is only one amendment that has not been moved. There have been other debates that have gone on until 1 am. If we spent less time discussing this aspect, we could finish quite soon.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the central aim of the Renters’ Rights Bill is to give tenants more security in their homes. Landlords must not be able to evict tenants without a ground for possession, as defined in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which we are expanding and refining to ensure that landlords can gain possession where proportionate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has stated that they do not support Clause 61 standing part of the Bill. This clause will repeal Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which, if brought into force, would have allowed landlords to take possession of premises they believed to be abandoned without a court order. However, Part 3 of the 2016 Act was never brought into force. It also wholly pertained to assured shorthold tenancies. Those tenancies will cease to exist in the private rented sector after the implementation of the Bill. The repeal of Part 3, therefore, is necessary to maintain a coherent statute book.
As I mentioned, Part 3 of the 2016 Act would have enabled landlords to reclaim possession of properties under an assured shorthold tenancy that had been abandoned without a court order, provided they had issued three warning notices without response and the tenant was in rent arrears. While we acknowledge that genuine abandonment can present challenges—I dealt with a case that had gone on for years and years in Stevenage—not only for landlords but also for the wider community, these provisions were not the appropriate solution. At the time, they were criticised as a rogue landlord’s charter, and it is appropriate that they were never implemented.
Where abandonment has occurred, landlords will need to establish a ground for possession. It is likely that, in abandonment scenarios, tenants will also be in rent arrears, making those grounds for possession applicable. Landlords may also rely on breaches of tenancy agreements, such as clauses prohibiting prolonged unoccupancy or on grounds relating to deterioration of the property. In clear-cut situations, implied surrender may also apply—for example, where tenants have returned the keys and the landlord has accepted them even if no formal notice was given.
It is vital that tenants have access to justice when facing the loss of their home. Landlords must not be enabled to take possession without a valid ground. Clause 61 ensures the removal of these redundant provisions from the statute book. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will not do a full closing speech. The purpose of this was for the Minister to give us some thoughts on how you might deal with abandonment rather than going through a lengthy court case when clearly the property has been abandoned. I would be very grateful if, before Report, the Minister could give this some thought. None of us wants abandoned properties; we want them back in use and available for rent. We do not want people accumulating rental deficits that have to be chased through the court. There clearly is a special case here that needs to be considered. I look forward to the Minister giving us a thoughtful response before Report on how we address the issue of abandoned properties. None one on either side of the Committee wants abandoned properties.
“Student accommodation that is not an HMO(1) Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 (buildings which are not HMOs) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (4).(2) After paragraph 3 insert—“Buildings occupied by students: England
3A (1) Any building in England—(a) which is occupied solely or principally by persons who occupy it for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education at a specified educational establishment, or at an educational establishment of a specified description, and where the person managing or having control of it is the educational establishment in question, or(b) which is occupied solely or principally by persons who occupy it for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education at an educational establishment and where the person managing or having control of it is a specified person or a person of a specified description.(2) In—(a) sub-paragraph (1)(a) “specified” means specified for the purposes of that sub-paragraph in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) sub-paragraph (1)(b) “specified” means specified for the purposes of that sub-paragraph in regulations made by the Secretary of State;and the regulations may (in particular) provide that an educational establishment is specified, or of a specified description, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b).(3) Those regulations may, in particular, specify—(a) as a description of educational establishment for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), or(b) as a description of person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b),the members from time to time, or a description of the members from time to time, of a housing management code of practice which is specified in the regulations.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) specify a class of building, and(b) provide that a building—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if it is of the specified class, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if it is of the specified class.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) specify a building manager or a class of building manager,(b) specify a class of building in relation to the specified building manager or the specified class of building manager, and(c) provide that a building which the specified building manager, or a building manager of the specified class, manages or has control of—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the building is of the specified class, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the building is of the specified class.(6) Regulations under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(b) may, in particular, specify as a class of building—(a) the buildings, or(b) a class of the buildings,from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(b).(7) Regulations under sub-paragraph (5)(a) may, in particular, specify as a class of building manager—(a) the members, or(b) a class of the members,from time to time of a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (5)(a).(8) For the purposes of this paragraph— (a) “building manager” means an educational establishment or other person managing or having control of a building;(b) “housing management code of practice” means a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 233 (codes relating to the management of HMOs or excepted accommodation);(c) a building is “subject to” a housing management code of practice if it—(i) is a particular building subject to the code, or(ii) is of a class of buildings subject to the code;(d) a reference to—(i) a class of the buildings from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice, or(ii) a class of the members from time to time of a housing management code of practice,includes the buildings or members that are from time to time in a class provided for in the code of practice.”(3) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 before the coming into force of this section are to continue to have effect on and after the coming into force of this section as if made under paragraph 3A of that Schedule (inserted by this section).(4) In paragraph 4 (buildings occupied by students)—(a) in the heading, after “students” insert “: Wales”;(b) in sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a), after “building” insert “in Wales”.(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “appropriate national authority” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.(d) in sub-paragraph (3), for “appropriate national authority” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.(e) in sub-paragraph (4)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “appropriate national authority may have regard to the extent to which, in its opinion” substitute “Welsh Ministers may have regard to the extent to which, in their opinion”;(ii) in paragraph (a), for “authority” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.(5) In consequence of the other amendments made by this section—(a) in paragraph 16E(3) of Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2019 (inserted by Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 2025) (meaning of “institutional building”), in paragraph (i)(i) and (ii) (buildings occupied by students), for “paragraph 4” substitute “paragraph 3A or 4”;(b) in the Capital Allowances Act 2001, in section 270CF (exclusion from qualifying use: residential use), in subsection (1)(b), for “paragraph 4” substitute “paragraph 3A or 4”.(6) Any regulations made by the Treasury under paragraph 16E(3)(i)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2019 before the coming into force of this section which designate provision as provision corresponding to paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 are to continue to have effect on and after the coming into force of this section as if they designated the provision as provision corresponding to paragraph 3A or 4 of that Schedule.”Member's explanatory statement
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 provides for certain buildings used as student accommodation not to be a house in multiple occupation. This amendment would enable the exemption to be limited to buildings of a specified description; and for regulations to operate by reference to codes of practice approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004.
Lord Best
“Training and qualifications of property agents managing assured tenancies(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require that individuals undertaking the activities of a property agent in respect of management of assured tenancies must have, or be working toward, specific mandatory qualifications, as defined by regulations to demonstrate competency to undertake their property agency roles.(2) Regulations under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, or transitional provision;(e) must specify classes or types of employees who must be qualified and the appropriate qualification level for each such group;(f) must specify syllabuses and testing methods for qualifications;(g) must specify means of training provision and minimum training hours;(h) must specify requirements for continuous professional development;(i) must approve providers for the provision of training and qualifications.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this is a slightly longer amendment, but I will take it at a brisk pace. Amendments 203 and 204 in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Thornhill, relate to the implementation of recommendations from the governmental regulation of property agents—ROPA—working group, aimed at protecting consumers from dodgy or inept estate agents, letting agents and managing agents.
Your Lordships have considered and endorsed the case for regulating property agents on a number of occasions since the ROPA report was published by the Government in 2019. Your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Committee endorsed the recommendations only last year. Indeed, the Housing and Planning Minister, Matthew Pennycook MP, has made clear that the Government accept the case for regulation of the sector, so there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments again. Indeed, the professional bodies and trade associations, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Property Institute, Propertymark and the Lettings Industry Council have persistently supported the ROPA agenda. Those who would be regulated are as keen on regulation as those consumers who would be protected by it.
However, I fear that the Housing Minister feels that the new measures for ROPA will have to wait until a later date. It is possible that the forthcoming leasehold and commonhold reform Bill will include regulatory measures for the managing agents of leasehold property —a part of the property agency sector where there have been many complaints of abuses and incompetence. However, that Bill only covers leasehold property and is unlikely to incorporate lettings agents, and its timetable is uncertain. The Renters’ Rights Bill presents an important opportunity to take a first step towards creating a proper regulatory framework for the property agency sector. This Bill is concerned with the deal faced by renters and letting agents, who are involved with half the properties in the PRS. This is a chance to raise standards, and a timely one.
The ROPA working group, in recommending the creation of a regulator for property agents, emphasised the need for proper qualifications as well as adherence to a code of practice. At present, anyone can set up a property agency business overnight with no experience of property matters.
Amendment 203 would require the relevant agents to have or be working toward mandatory qualifications. Since the Bill relates only to lettings, its requirement for proper qualifications can affect only lettings agents; and since setting up a fully-fledged regulator just for lettings agents could be seen as disproportionate, this amendment is strictly limited to the requirement for qualifications, which is the most basic of a regulatory regime.
However, without the establishment of a regulator, how can even this somewhat tentative step be taken toward creating a more professional property management sector? Who, in the absence of a regulator, can enforce the new regulatory requirements for qualifications set out in Amendment 203?
Local Authorities’ Trading Standards Officers could check that legal requirements are being met in their area, but, to protect the consumer, a robust national mechanism is needed to operationalise this amendment’s requirements for agents to hold the necessary qualifications before acting for landlords and taking responsibility for rental properties.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, once again I follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and have added my name to one of his amendments. I commend the work that he has done on this particular subject.
The only point I want to make is to draw attention to the growing gap between the qualifications that are needed to manage a block in the social sector as against those needed to manage a block in the private sector. I take the view that, whether you live in a block managed by a social landlord or a private landlord, you are entitled to the same quality of management, professionalism and competence.
Two years ago, we had the then Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. That set out requirements of qualifications for those in the registered social landlord sector, and it required some 25,000 people to go out and get qualifications. Senior housing managers have to have a level 4 housing qualification and senior housing executives need level 5. One could make the case that requirements are even more necessary in the private sector, because it does not have the overall protection that the social housing sector has with either local authorities or registered social landlords.
There is now a growing gap between the relative qualifications you need, depending on whether the block is in the private or public sector. Although some progress has been made in driving up the standards of lettings agents, there is still some way to go. I hope the Minister will be able to express some sympathy for these two amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, indicated, if we do not make any progress with this Bill, we will be back with the leasehold Bill later in the Session.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have also put my name to Amendment 203 and I declare a non-financial interest as chair of the Property Institute, which favours regulation of all property agents, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said. Amendment 203 is about safety, security and the good management of people’s homes. I think we all agree that residents deserve to be safe in their homes, but in rented accommodation it is impossible for residents to do everything themselves, because the building and the environment are actually owned and managed by the landlord.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, intimated that, in the case of social housing, it actually took the death of Awaab Ishak to bring forward mandatory qualifications for those who manage social property. As he said, however, there is no equivalent for private property, where unqualified and even rogue agents take responsibility for vital parts of the building’s upkeep, its safety, its access, its insurance and its legality. Unlike other professions handling legal and financial transactions, most of which are regulated, there are no mandatory qualifications or any minimum requirements for property agents, even when they are managing the money of assured tenancies. The absence of regulations clearly can lead to the mismanagement of deposits and rents and legal non-compliance, very often through ignorance rather than wickedness.
Managing shared buildings, particularly tall ones, is extremely complicated and demanding, and growing more so. There are a lot of new energy-efficient rules, quite rightly; there are increasing tenant demands for involvement, quite rightly; there is the rising cost of insurance; and there is more focus on legislation on health and safety, particularly after Grenfell. All these are complicated issues that need to be handled by a professional in the private rented sector, which houses, of course, many vulnerable people.
The private rented sector is often the home of people who can least afford to pay for any additional services, and, if they are paying too much in rent, they cannot even heat the property, and that can be because of mismanagement. It should be obvious without, I hope, having to wait for a death in the private rented sector, that all managing agents looking after homes should be properly competent and qualified. It is a job for professionals, not amateurs.
This amendment is a way forward. We are not talking about an expensive thing to run; it is not asking for very much. It asks simply that those who are paid to manage rented properties know what they are doing and have the qualifications to prove it, so that landlords would employ only agents capable of managing homes legally and honestly. Let us not wait for a tragedy: let us do it now. We owe it to all residents to make sure that the state requires those managing their homes to know what they are doing.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 203 and 204, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I declare my interest as a leaseholder, as well as a landlord and former PRS tenant. Noble Lords supporting these amendments have already made a cast-iron case for requiring property-management agents to have relevant training and qualifications, and for these requirements to be legally enforced.
I have dealt with a number of property management agents. Some have been excellent and others have been appalling. It seems extraordinary to me that property agents who may deal with millions of pounds of property and revenue are currently not required to have any professional qualifications or training whatever. Some agents I have dealt with in the past have no property qualifications and had little or no understanding of property law or lease enforcement. There is no other sector that I am aware of where individuals dealing with such large amounts of money and such valuable assets can be wholly unqualified and virtually unregulated.
Anyone can set themselves up as a property agent, with little or no knowledge of the sector. Many property agents are, of course, very professional, but the rogues and amateurs undermine the reputation of the whole property sector. This must end, as we have heard. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support these two amendments and urge the Minister to accept them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. It is rare that I am out of step with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, but I am concerned that overregulation of aspects of employment is—how can I put it?—a solution waiting for an extensive problem. One of the things that these amendments do is to yet again give considerable powers to others to set all sorts of training expectations. Candidly, and certainly in the private market, there are simply too many sectors in which government and Parliament seek to rip away control instead of the individual having that engagement and relationship.
We already have the property redress scheme in place, of which letting agents and people who manage properties have to be a part. Do not get me wrong: there are plenty of landlords who are not necessarily doing what they should, at the moment, but there are already mechanisms to put this in place. I do not believe that qualifications, training schemes or similar will make a particular difference.
I am also conscious of what happened with social housing, particularly some of the significant failures that we sadly saw in aspects of local government and housing associations. There was a feeling that something must be done. I am conscious, however, that that does not mean that we need to paint every letting agent or property manager with the same brush. For me, this is overreach on behalf of Parliament and, again, I would like to see the evidence for why we need to go to this extent and why yet another profession that has minimal regulation today now needs to be heavily regulated.
It is again a barrier that would put up agencies’ costs. This is the reality of having to deal with this sort of regulation: the person who pays is the renter, not the landlord. We have to bear in mind that, with the cost of living challenge that we are facing—still the number one issue for the electorate in this country—we are here tonight considering an amendment that will continue to put costs on people who are trying to pay their rent. This is the sort of economic situation that we need to consider for every regulation where we are adding extra barriers to entry to make sure that we keep in mind the people who want to just get on with their lives and have good relationships. They can change in the private sector; that is much harder for people in the social rented sector but, even then, we may have gone slightly too far. We must continue to consider the economic impact on people in this country with every regulation that we pass in this House.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I declare an interest, which I recently gave up, as the chair of the Property Ombudsman board. Perhaps I can provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wanted because, in 30 years of dealing with complaints about property agents, the Property Ombudsman has seen many disputes that probably would not have occurred had those agents undertaken formal training and qualifications.
In 2023—the latest statistics we have—the ombudsman resolved over 2,200 letting disputes. Of these, over half concerned the management of tenancies where the main issues were the agents’ performance in organising and communicating repair and maintenance issues. For the majority, dissatisfaction in these disputes concerned simple and consistent communication around timescales and, in general, managing expectations. Training for agents on how to manage tenant and landlord expectations would have stopped many disputes arising in the first instance.
In addition, there were more than 500 disputes that related to complaint handling. Again, agents currently do not take a consistent approach to complaint handling, which often leaves both tenants and landlords frustrated. It became very clear to me in my time at the Property Ombudsman that to provide a professional and consistent level of service to tenants and landlords, many letting agents would benefit from formal training. It would not only help agents to provide a better service but set consistent expectations for consumers, meaning that relationships between agents, tenants and landlords would improve.
In my brief intervention, I reinforce the RoPA report recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Best, indeed reinforced by the work of my noble friend Lady Hayter, that the elements required to implement a training and qualifications regime are already in place. I hope it would not be too significant a leap for the Government to make training and qualifications a mandatory requirement for all letting agents.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, talk about save the Best until last—well, until the penultimate. The breadth, depth, knowledge, understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is fascinating and extraordinary. I thank all noble Lords. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill who also put her name to both amendments. She signed these amendments and we backed them because it is so astonishing that property agents still, today, have none of these qualifications and that anyone can be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they need in order to advise landlords and tenants on these significant complex legal issues in exchange for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job.
Propertymark and others are pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are not doing a good job, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described, and that they are letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a terrible reputation. It is in everyone’s interest that this aspect of the private rented sector is regulated, precisely because the UK property market is very heavily regulated already, with strict laws governing tenants’ rights and landlords’ obligations across many different Acts. Knowledge, understanding and training around that is absolutely critical.
Qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise to navigate this minefield. Legal compliance and risk management are essential. The list of what they have to do already is long and complex and the Bill will add to it, which is why a transition timeline is essential, with thorough, clear guidance as to what is expected, when and by whom. Landlords are rightly worried about this, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the sector on that particular issue of timeline.
It is worth stressing that without proper qualifications, agents risk costly legal battles, fines and damage to their own professional reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there. The sector is keen to get going and roll them out, but they need that push; that degree of compulsion. Amendments 203 and 204 would provide that. Qualifications demonstrate that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, but also, importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All these things are needed. This would create a virtuous circle, boost tenants’ confidence and make landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance, repairs and rent collection and handle financial management. Surely this has to be done with real professional skill, reducing the risk of disputes and maintaining property value. Those agents who get ahead of the curve and get qualified now will become the best. They will stand out from the crowd in a competitive marketplace.
If the Bill is about raising the standard in the private rented sector, rooting out the bad guys and making a once-in-a-generation shift in private renting, this is such an important part of the equation. The Government must grasp it, grasp it soon and get on with it. At the end of the day, it is not just about bricks and mortar, but people’s homes and livelihoods. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, where and when?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing Amendments 203 and 204 before your Lordships’ House today. They propose the insertion of new clauses after Clause 63 and rightly focus on training property agents and the enforcement of agent qualifications. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who raised the important aspect of parity with the social rented sector, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who said that, actually, this is very complex, that people need to understand it and that inadvertent mistakes and omissions are frequently made. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, gave us some statistics—I could not write them down quickly enough, but I am sure I will get hold of them sooner or later. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made a good point, which I will come back to, about proportionality and the risk of overregulation—something that noble Lords may have heard once or twice from this side of the Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose comments I will also come back to.
Your Lordships’ House is correct to consider the value of proper training and qualifications, and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I shall focus my contribution on the impact that training can have in reducing the risk of regulatory breaches, thereby benefiting tenants. Not only will well-trained agents develop a broader and more cohesive understanding of the law but their ignorance, and the potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding, will be greatly diminished. With this, significant benefits will also be felt by local authorities, as fewer cases of regulatory breaches will be brought to their attention for resolution.
Such a reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities are tasked with implementing the Secretary of State’s reorganisation plans as outlined in the devolution White Paper. As your Lordships’ House will be well aware, local authorities are currently operating under immense pressure—facing financial constraints, staffing shortages and increasing responsibilities. It is not just a case of money; I know from my experience with local authorities and their housing teams that it is a lack of enough trained people. We need to seek to minimise the pressure that we put on them.
We must explore proactive measures such as ensuring that property agents are properly trained and qualified from the outset. By doing so, we not only improve standards across the sector but allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on strategic priorities rather than enforcement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, there is an issue of proportionality. We must ensure that any powers we pass to the Secretary of State are proportionate and can be implemented. While ministerial oversight is, of course, necessary in certain respects, we must be cautious about top-down regulation of key aspects of training and enforcement.
If we are truly committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign this matter to the “deal with it later” category. This argument has been, and will no doubt continue to be, clearly articulated across this House. Not placing provisions in the Bill is not only inadequate but raises more questions than it answers. We must understand the Minister’s intentions fully before we consider granting such significant powers to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the intention behind these amendments is well placed. Educating letting agents is vital, as they occupy a central role in the rental housing market and have a direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully.
Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising housing supply should be at the front and centre of the Government’s thinking. It is vital that we establish clear, accessible means to ensure that landlords understand their rights and responsibilities, and the regulatory framework in which they operate. Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments relating to the regulation of property agents. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Truscott and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Coffey, who have all spoken in this debate, as well as my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Hayter.
Amendment 203 would enable the Secretary of State, through subsequent secondary legislation, to introduce professional qualifications for property agents who manage assured tenancies. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his continued engagement on such an important topic—I do regard it as such. He is an ardent campaigner for driving up standards across all property agents, not just letting agents, who are the focus of this amendment.
The Housing Minister and I have had a number of conversations with the noble Lord on how best to raise levels of professionalism. We recognise the challenges that tenants and landlords can face when using letting agents. Many agents provide a good service, but some do not.
The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords and those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about parity with the social housing sector, we want to ensure consistency with our work to drive up management standards in the social housing sector. We are aware that in some blocks, including those managed by social landlords, managing agents will be providing services for both leaseholders and social housing tenants. It is important to ensure that any measures we bring forward on managing agent regulation take full account of other legal requirements, including qualifications proposed for the social housing sector.
Protections are already in place to make sure that both tenants and landlords are treated fairly by letting agents and can hold them to account. This includes the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which bans most letting fees and caps tenancy deposits paid by tenants in the private rented sector in England, and the requirement for all property agents, including letting agents, to be members of a government-approved redress scheme.
The Housing Minister made a Written Ministerial Statement on 21 November 2024 which set out the Government’s intention to revisit the 2019 report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on regulating the property agent sector. We continue to engage across the sector to improve standards among property agents. We welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry itself, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hayter.
We are continuing to consider this issue carefully and have already announced our intention to introduce minimum qualifications for property managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates, and to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the regulation of letting, managing and estate agents in due course. I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for the strong evidence she provided about why that is necessary.
Amendment 204 would have the effect that a property agent who manages assured tenancies may be part of a mandatory redress scheme only if they meet the relevant qualification requirements. In practice, this amendment would place responsibility for ensuring the appropriate property agent has the relevant qualifications on the Property Ombudsman and Property Redress. It would also give these redress schemes the power to award a financial penalty for non-compliance.
The main role of redress schemes is to deal with individual complaints by tenants against their agent. The existing redress schemes have a number of levers at their disposal, including the ability to award compensation to a tenant or a landlord where things have gone wrong. They may also expel members from their scheme. However, redress schemes are not designed to be enforcement bodies, so it would not be appropriate to give them powers to issue a financial penalty. Such measures should be reserved for enforcement authorities, such as local authorities. Furthermore, expulsion from or failure to join a redress scheme will not expressly prevent an agent from trading, although it does mean that the agent is in breach of regulations and liable for enforcement action by the local authority.
The question of who is best placed to enforce qualification measures is important and is certainly something the Government are taking into account as part of their consideration of the regulation of managing, letting and estate agents. As I have mentioned before, we will set out our position on this in due course. I am happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Best, and any other noble Lord to discuss this issue further. However, with these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Young, drew attention to the fact that social housing providers are now required to have qualifications, and the same should go for the private sector—perhaps even more so. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminded us of Awaab’s law, introduced by the previous Government after the death of little Awaab Ishak, and the dangers of housing management not operating smoothly and for the safety of the occupiers. She said that this business was a job for professionals—for properly qualified people—and so it is.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who made the point that managing agents, property agents and letting agents are dealing with millions of pounds-worth of clients’ money. It is actually billions rather than millions. A really serious commitment is required of these agents. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was not so sure that qualifications and training would make any difference. I think this is a bit out of step with the sector itself, the profession, which is asking very urgently for regulation to drive out those who are not worthy of being part of that profession, just as we would expect accountants, doctors and lawyers all to have qualifications before they undertake important tasks.
“Mediated rent pauses (housing conditions)(1) This section applies where—(a) there is a tenancy to which section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies;(b) it appears to the tenant that the landlord has breached the covenant implied by that section; and(c) it appears to the tenant that the landlord has failed to carry out works necessary to remedy any such breaches within the timeframes set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 10A(3) of that Act.(2) A tenant is entitled to make arrangements to pay rent to an independent individual, rather than to the relevant landlord.(3) The independent individual must not pass any rent paid under subsection (2) to the landlord until there has been a determination or agreement between the landlord and tenant as to the landlord’s liability for any breach of the covenant implied by section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.(4) Where a determination or agreement under subsection (3) sets a time by which works are to be completed, the independent individual will—(a) release any rent paid under subsection (2) to the landlord if the works are completed by that time;(b) release any rent paid under subsection (2) back to the tenant if the works have not been completed by that time.(5) In this section an “independent individual” means the independent individual responsible for investigating complaints made against members of a landlord redress scheme under section 65.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, all the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Members of the House who are still here at 12.47 am will note that I am not the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend is the Green lark, and I am the Green owl, so you get me after midnight.
I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. The hashtag I often use is #Nowaytorunacountry. I take the systematic approach to this and suggest that your Lordships’ House urgently needs to think about a reset of our sitting hours.
I rise to move Amendment 206 in the name of my noble friend. This is a very straightforward, positive, friendly amendment aiming to assist the Government to ensure that this legislation can be enforced and can make a real difference. We know that so many renters are trapped in mouldy homes with leaking roofs and heating and hot water systems that are not working. When renters find themselves in those kinds of situations, this amendment would give them the right to pay the rent to a third-party body. My noble friend Lady Jones has suggested the new ombudsman, but we are very open to other suggestions as well. There are other ways of doing it. The amendment is written in a neutral way.
This is to deal with the situation where a landlord refuses to carry out essential repairs, yet the tenant is in a situation where they still have to keep paying for this utterly inadequate accommodation. The arrangements under this amendment would be that, if a landlord carries out the works and ameliorates the problems, the independent third-party would send them the full amount of rent due. If not, the tenant could get a full or partial refund, which they might well otherwise have to go to court to try to recover.
This is both a fair and an effective provision. It punishes the bad landlords and does not impact on the good ones. From the Government’s point of view, this is a constructive suggestion to help make sure that this legislation delivers on its stated aims. With those brief remarks, I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this in effect creates a formal escrow process. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a student rent strike, admittedly some time ago, as noble Lords may recognise. At the time, the university accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year and as a consequence it felt like the university was not taking various matters very seriously.
I happened not to be a paying student at the time; I was a vice-warden in a hall of residence. So I did help them, but I insisted that, if I was to help them, they would have to pay over their rent to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. As a consequence, repairs were made and everyone ended up happy—apart from the university, which did not like my role in that at all.
The reason I tell that story is that it matters that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is, frankly, taking the mickey. Awaab’s law has already been mentioned and Clause 63, which we did not specifically address, is already extending that to the private sector, and I welcome that. We need to work out a much easier way for people to effectively deploy this escrow approach. That is why I am supporting the amendment.
It is fair to say that we need to make sure that any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, there is a regularly read out statistic that something like 15% to 20% of housing benefit—or housing support, whether as direct housing benefit or through universal credit—is thought to go to properties not deemed fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail on this with officials.
The philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary and other officials was that the state thus far should not determine on behalf of the renter where they are going to live; it is an important right for the renter to make that choice—even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers’ money was being spent in, frankly, some pretty ropey places. From my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. Sometimes, I am afraid, the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken—but that is a minor aside. The point is that—whether it is private money, your own money or the state’s money going to a private landlord—it matters that we have habitable accommodation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments have raised the serious and emotive issue of the reality of tenants living in poor housing conditions and the remedies that are available when landlords fail to act. It is an area where frustration and vulnerability can understandably run high.
Amendment 206, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, proposes a system of mediated rent pauses. Under that model, tenants would be entitled to pay rent to an independent individual rather than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. However, we must be clear-eyed about this. How would it operate in practice? Who would this independent individual be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, is it appropriate or even realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated.
There is also the question of safeguards. What mechanisms would ensure that the process was fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right that landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent homes, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication. That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. Would this approach encourage resolution or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules?
In short, while the amendment is well intentioned, and of course we sympathise with all individuals living in poor conditions and battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. On balance, we are not persuaded that the provision as drafted would be workable in practice. However, there must be a better, more practical way to ensure that tenants are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 206, ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who moved it, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for taking part in the debate.
Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to the ombudsman rather than their landlord if the landlord had failed to meet legal requirements on housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to ensure that landlords remedy hazards in good time—we all know the outcome when that does not happen—but I feel that the Bill’s existing provisions are the best way to achieve that. The Bill will allow private rented sector tenants to challenge their landlord through the courts if they fail to comply with the Awaab’s law requirements, such as timescales for remedying hazards. Alongside that, it will allow us to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, which is an important move.
The PRS landlord ombudsman will provide a new route of redress for tenants and will be able to investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The Bill will also strengthen rent repayment orders, including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent that a tribunal will be able to award a tenant. Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where a relevant offence has been committed, including offences related to housing standards, such as failing to comply with an improvement notice.
The amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks unintended consequences that might lead inadvertently to worse outcomes for tenants. For example, rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required works, a point that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to. Existing measures in the Bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties and give tenants access to compensation if their landlords have not met obligations in relation to standards, as well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out repairs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and those who have taken part in this short but perfectly formed debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular for her support for the amendment. It is something we might come back to and look at the working of down the track. I also thank her for the fascinating tale of student days which, I think, took many of us back to our own student days. I think there was an expression of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for the intention if not the exact drafting of the amendment. I would stress that we are not wedded to the precise drafting, as we are in Committee; we would be delighted to work on the detail of the drafting as we go forward.
In response to the Minister’s response, I am afraid there is a phrase that I am sure is in the Civil Service handbook: “inadvertent consequences”. That seems to be the response that every Minister gives. More substantively, what the Minister said is that tenants can challenge through the courts and appeal to the ombudsman, and orders for action can be done. Those are all things that have differential levels of access depending on people’s capacity, people’s awareness, people’s ability to access those things—their time and energy and costs. The action proposed by this Amendment 206, however, is a really straightforward and simple way to give tenants the power to have control and agency for themselves, not relying on other bodies.
Having said all that, this is of course Committee, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment while reserving the ability to come back on Report.