Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We have always been clear that we support the Acorn project. My colleagues and I have had many discussions with the industry, and we know what an important proposal it is. As we have said, the decision is a matter for the spending review, but we are close to having those decisions. I thank the hon. Member for speaking up on behalf of the Acorn project, as many hon. Members across the House have done.
Seamus Logan
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker. Proposals for carbon capture and storage near Peterhead in my constituency have been kicked into the long grass by successive UK Governments. Last week, a report by Professor Paul de Leeuw of Robert Gordon University warned of the need for urgent action to protect the energy supply chain and accelerate the just transition; he warned that thousands upon thousands of jobs were at risk. While I know the Secretary of State recognises that the Acorn project is a strategic cornerstone of the transition to a low-carbon future and economic growth in the north-east of Scotland and the nation. will the Government finally commit the funding necessary for the project to proceed?
Sarah Jones
We know how important carbon capture, usage and storage is—the Climate Change Committee said there is no route to net zero that does not include carbon capture—with, of course, up to 50,000 good, well-paid jobs across the UK. The Government have already shown their commitment to carbon capture with a £21.7 billion investment. I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to wait until the spending review for the final decisions, but I hope he agrees that we are putting in place ambitious, substantial carbon capture plans that will drive growth across the country.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Acorn would go some way to reindustrialising areas of Scotland, which is much needed. I welcomed the Government committing £200 million from the national wealth fund for future industry at Grangemouth in my constituency. To avoid us again being in the precarious position of having private-capital or foreign-Government ownership dictate our future energy industries, do the Government plan to take any ownership stake in the industries that will be coming at Grangemouth?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to say that we lost thousands of jobs under the previous Government, whether in ceramics, chemicals or steel. The previous Government saw foundational industries through the rear-view mirror, but we know that these industries will forge our future. That is why we are rushing to get to clean energy by 2030 so that we can bring prices down, why we are supporting our industries through the supercharger, and why through the industrial strategy we are looking to provide more support, not less, to those crucial foundational industries.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. We have been busy since we last met for oral questions. We have confirmed that rooftop solar panels will be standard on all new build homes and have funded £650 million of clean energy upgrades for over 200 buildings. We have also delivered the first solar projects for 11 schools, secured Royal Assent for Great British Energy—the UK’s first national publicly owned energy company in 70 years—launched the marine energy taskforce, signed a green industrial partnership with Norway and kick-started community energy right across the country. We are ambitious in our plans. There is much more to do, but we are doing more than any other Government to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Tim Farron
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Most of the 1,500 farms in Westmorland and Lonsdale have rivers or becks running through them. Since we are the most beautiful—and indeed wettest—place in England, that is an awful lot of potential, and mostly untapped, energy. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister meet me and hydro energy experts to consider a new nationwide project to support farmers to have small hydroelectricity schemes on their farms to diversify farm income, provide clean energy for the farm and harness natural renewable energy for the wider economy?
Michael Shanks
I will not be drawn on confirming whether the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is the most beautiful part of England—I will leave that to him. However, what he proposes sounds like a fantastic idea and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further. We see huge potential for a whole range of renewables. Those kinds of innovative projects—smaller scale as well—are what could deliver not just benefits for the system but real benefits for the communities that host them.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Moving from gas to electricity in home heating is an important part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet at the Select Committee hearing last week, we heard real concerns that people in energy debt are unable to disconnect from gas and are therefore still stuck paying standing charges. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are to remove that problem and ensure that more people can take up the opportunities presented by electrifying home heat?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, on the importance of decarbonising heating across the country, the electrification of home heat will be an important way of delivering cheaper bills for people and reaching our decarbonisation targets. Secondly, on the important matter of debt, I know the Minister for Energy Consumers has been doing work with Ofgem, and we have been looking at a debt relief scheme for exactly those sorts of questions. Clearly, we want to support as many households as possible to move on to cheaper heating in the long term. We will continue to push forward that work.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Change in the language by the UK Government on the Moroccan autonomy plan paves the way for a bright new future between the two kingdoms. Does the Minister therefore feel that the time is right to finally make a decision on the UK-Morocco power project that could potentially add 8% of the UK’s grid requirements and clean energy for the future?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this in the House before. He is right to point out that we see an important partnership with Morocco across our economy, and we have outlined more of that in the last few days. The proposal he discusses is from a private company and, like the previous Government, we have been looking at it. We will say more in due course.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. Given the enormous potential for renewable energy generation across Scotland, including in my constituency, does the Minister recognise that accelerating community-owned energy projects and, crucially, improving local transmission infrastructure would not only reduce fossil fuel reliance, but deliver direct economic benefits to local people?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, representing, as he does, a beautiful part of Scotland and one with huge potential for such schemes. That is why Great British Energy announced £4 million of funding for community energy projects in Scotland, working with the Scottish Government to drive those forward. We see, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the huge benefits not just of delivering clean power, but of the social and economic value for the communities that host it. We are clear that community-owned energy has huge untapped potential and huge benefits for communities. We want to see much more of it, and Great British Energy will help deliver it.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response on reducing the reliance on fossil fuels; no more backing for oil and gas is essential for protecting our children’s futures. However, that positive change requires a plan to future-proof British industries that works for everyone, particularly those who are currently working in those high-carbon sectors. Will the Minister and his colleagues commit to publishing an energy jobs plan for how those workers can be supported in that transition, particularly around being provided with retraining opportunities?
Michael Shanks
We consulted on a detailed plan around the future of energy in the North sea, which includes a detailed section on workforce planning. I am sure the hon. Lady was able to submit a response to that consultation, and we will look carefully at her views. We take the question of workforce incredibly seriously. Jobs will be created right across the clean power mission, including in the biggest upgrade to the transmission infrastructure that we have seen in this country for many years, much of which her party seems to oppose.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Today’s brilliant announcement backing Rolls-Royce to deliver small modular reactors creates more skilled jobs while also delivering clean, secure energy that does not rely on fossil fuels, even when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Does the Minister agree that the decision shows British business, supported by this Government, again leading the way?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I completely agree with her. Today, we have announced a new golden age of nuclear power in this country after decades of dither and delay; in fact, I think that the last switch-on of a nuclear power station was before I was even born. [Interruption.] It is not that long ago. We are driving forward the real potential that we see in nuclear power, and the Secretary of State will make a statement on that later. That is how we deliver thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs across the country and the important energy security that we need. I hope that we will see SMRs in every part of the United Kingdom, including in Scotland.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. You look younger every year, if I may say so. Last week, we launched the new future homes standard, which will ensure that the vast majority of new build houses will have solar panels installed as standard. This will end the absurd situation the previous Government left where new housing was built without solar panels. We are kick-starting a solar rooftop revolution, and the upcoming solar road map will lay out how we are bringing cheap clean power to families and businesses across the country.
Lee Barron
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Only 20% of schools currently have solar panels. Brigstock Latham’s primary in my constituency does not. That is why its year 5 pupils have written to me asking for panels on their roof. They tell me that this would cut their carbon footprint, reduce bills and help improve their education. One pupil wrote:
“We may be a small school, but we can be big sometimes.”
Will my right hon. Friend support their inspiring campaign and perhaps visit these young community activists in my constituency?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the pupils of Brigstock Latham’s primary school on their incredible spirit. Young people right across the country care about these issues. Also, they are pointing out something really important, which is that we have this free resource of the sun and we should use it. That is why putting solar panels on schools and elsewhere is big project for Great British Energy.
Dr Gardner
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, businesses such as the Bestway Group, which owns Well healthcare in Meir Park, and Goodwin International in Newstead are keen to invest in rooftop solar, but they cannot get national grid connectivity. In the case of Well healthcare, it will have to wait until 2032. Meanwhile, residents in my village areas are frustrated at the growth of solar farms on agricultural land when there are acres of empty flat roofs on industrial estates. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the many challenges and opportunities for transitioning to clean energy that businesses in my constituency face?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises some important points. The first is on grid connections. With the grid reforms that we are doing, we are going to end this zombie queue where projects are taking up space when they are not going to connect or not going to connect in time. That will open up the future to projects such as hers. On the point about industrial estates, I can give her a sneak preview and tell her that this is part of the solar road map. She makes important points, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) has volunteered to meet her.
Mr Rand
Thanks to Great British Energy, Meadway health centre in my constituency is set to have solar panels installed, which will cover its entire energy bills for the summer. My local hospital, Wythenshawe, will also benefit, saving my local NHS trust some £4 million to £5 million a year, which can be reinvested back into frontline services. Despite the doom-mongering on net zero that we hear from the Opposition Benches, does the Secretary of State agree that this shows the power of helping our public services and creating jobs?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having hit the jackpot with the NHS benefiting from what Great British Energy is doing. He makes such an important point here, which is that the net zero agenda is about lower bills. For example, it is about cutting energy bills for frontline services and putting the money back into those services. Who could possibly be against that?
Tristan Osborne
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Chatham and Aylesford constituency, Clarion Housing is working with Octopus Energy in Snodland to install roof solar panels and heat pumps in social housing units. Can the Minister confirm how we can expand on such schemes, using the tenant power tariff for example, to reduce energy costs for our most vulnerable constituents?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and this is something that we are working on. There is huge potential in working with energy companies, with social housing providers and others to find ways in which this can be a true part of an anti-poverty strategy. This is something that we are working on, and we will have more to say about in the weeks and months ahead.
Lee Pitcher
I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the news that one of Great British Energy’s first major projects will be to install solar panels on schools and hospitals, and I hope that some of the 43 schools in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme will benefit. I have heard from local sports clubs that are keen to be part of the green energy revolution but face installation and funding barriers. Will the Secretary of State consider extending Great British Energy and other schemes to help community sports facilities to go green?
Ed Miliband
I love my hon. Friend’s idea; it is such a good one. Local sports clubs and lots of other community organisations can benefit from that project. I will suggest the idea to Great British Energy.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Mr Speaker, The Times has told the world how old you are today.
Sir Roger Gale
I do not propose to write it into the record, but I note that you are catching up on me. [Laughter.] Happy birthday.
Sir Roger Gale
Yesterday, a Minister said from the Dispatch Box that only 1% of farmland was being damaged by development, yet solar panels are smothering east Kent’s best farmland. It must stop. Given what the Secretary of State has said, what further steps will he take to protect our farmland and really do move solar panels on to rooftops, car parks and public buildings?
Ed Miliband
There are a few questions in there, and I will try to answer them as briefly as I can. Even for the biggest solar ambitions, less than 1% of land would be covered. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need solar rooftops too. That is why we have put an end to years of dither and delay, and last week announced that new homes will have solar panels fitted as standard. It makes total sense.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The solar panels on my roof started working last week, and I am very excited. If you do not have any solar panels, Mr Speaker, maybe you could give yourself a birthday present and ensure that you have an array, too. Mine were made possible by the Solar Together scheme organised by Bath and North East Somerset council. Such schemes are so important to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs. Will the Secretary of State ensure that funding for those schemes will continue?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the hon. Lady on having taken that step. She makes an important point: lots of people want to do this, but there is an up-front cost barrier. One thing that my Department is doing is working with the private sector, social housing providers, as I have said, and others to ask how we might break down up-front cost barriers so that more people, particularly those who cannot necessarily afford those costs, can benefit from solar power and cheaper bills.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Grand Union Community Energy in my constituency is a non-profit community group that has done excellent work in Kings Langley to raise funding to install solar panels on the roofs of local schools, developments and car parks. It also educates local residents on how they can utilise community energy to reduce energy bills, which we have all seen rise under this Government. What steps are being taken across Government to ensure that community projects such as Grand Union Community Energy are implemented more widely?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. I 100% agree with him about the role of community energy providers. I hope that he can persuade his Front Benchers to convert to supporting Great British Energy, because one of things that it will do—we will be happy to work with him on this—is unleash a wave of community energy across our country, doing precisely the things that he talks about.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I am delighted that the Government have seen the light on solar photovoltaics and recognised what an important step they are on the path to the sunlit uplands of homes that are genuinely fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State recognise that energy efficiency is a crucial part of energy security, and will he meet me to discuss how the future homes standard might ensure that every home is truly fit for the future, including by being zero carbon?
Ed Miliband
Let me first wish the hon. Member luck on her leadership bid. Anyone who wants to be a leader of a political party should take the idea under advisement, in my experience. I see the former Liberal Democrat leader, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), nodding. We want the future homes standard to really work. It was a plan that the previous Labour Government had for 2016, but the Conservative Government got rid of it. We want it to make a real difference, and it makes financial sense, because it means that we do not have to retrofit homes at much greater cost.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—your 40th, I am guessing. I was really impressed that Holy Trinity church in Colden Common, which is a heritage building, managed to increase its energy efficiency rating from F to A. Can the Secretary of State give any advice or guidance to communities who wish to improve heritage buildings, listed buildings and other old properties, which often face planning issues when seeking to install solar panels or insulation, or take other energy efficiency measures?
Ed Miliband
Let me congratulate the hon. Member’s community group. This whole set of questions has shown the huge untapped potential in the constituencies of Members in all parts of the House. I will say two things in answer. First, I will take this back to GB Energy, because I think the role of community groups as potential partners is really important. Secondly, he makes an important point on planning guidance. Sometimes the planning rules are okay, but the guidance is the problem, and it creates bureaucratic hurdles. I am working with the Minister for Housing and Planning to make sure the guidance is clear to local councils where there are barriers that they should not be putting in the way.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Increasing grid capacity is critical. We are halving the development time for new transmission infrastructure through reforms to planning and supply chains, so that we can deliver the grid capacity needed to achieve clean power by 2030 and meet the doubling of electricity demand by 2050.
Sarah Green
I thank the Minister for his response. He will know that some projects are waiting up to 15 years to connect to the grid, and the Secretary of State earlier referred to the zombie waiting list. Could I push him further and ask precisely what concrete steps the Department is taking to drastically cut that waiting list?
Michael Shanks
We have outlined significant reforms to the connections queue. There is currently more than 740 GW in that connection queue. Clearly, that is an unsustainable amount of demand for connection to the grid, and most of it does not really exist, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out. We have put forward significant reforms, so that we prioritise projects that are ready to connect to the grid, and have strategic importance to the grid. The clean power action plan will drive forward what those strategic outcomes are. That work is under way, and the National Energy System Operator is considering those proposals. It will free up a huge number of projects from the connections queue, allowing new projects to join, and, crucially, allowing for demand projects that will help deliver economic growth.
Olly Glover
In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, sites at Culham, Harwell campus and Milton Park host a growing range of scientific and high-tech businesses, including a proposed artificial intelligence growth zone at Culham. Major housing growth also continues, and the new Valley Park development will use air source heat pumps. However, the Future Oxfordshire Partnership has raised concerns that grid constraints are causing significant delays to decarbonisation activities and creation of local power grids. What steps will the Minister take to address these problems and create an electricity grid fit for 21st-century Oxfordshire?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point that outlines why this work is so important. There are two parts to it. The connections reform is crucial, so that we have a queue of projects that are strategically relevant and ready to be delivered. The second part is that we have to build significantly more grid infrastructure, and it is incumbent on all Members of this House to not oppose that grid infrastructure and then come here and say that they want new demand projects to be able to connect. Instead, they need to take a practical approach and say, “We’re going to have to build some new grid in this country if we want to unlock the huge potential of AI growth zones and other demand projects in the economy.”
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The strategic defence reviews of this Government and the previous Government highlighted the risks posed to our security by climate change. Does the Minister agree that the increasing opposition by the Conservatives and other Opposition Members to clean power infrastructure and increasing our grid capacity across the country is not just economically illiterate but a risk to our national security?
Michael Shanks
As so often, my hon. Friend is correct on these matters. He usually has a quote that shows that, just a few months ago, Opposition Front Benchers agreed with us on many of these matters, but have suddenly changed their position. As my hon. Friend says, our proposals are not only critical to delivering energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, but to tackling the climate crisis, which has such an impact on our lives now and in the future, and to the economic opportunities of the 21st century.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We need to ensure that the technology that we import to increase grid capacity is secure. US officials recently found kill switches in Chinese-made components for solar farms. The Conservatives have been clear about the security risks that China poses in our energy supply chain, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he discussed that issue in his recent meeting with Chinese officials? If not, why not?
Michael Shanks
On a day when we are announcing new nuclear schemes, I am almost tempted to ask: which party brought Chinese investment into the heart of our nuclear infrastructure? The Conservative party. In every decision taken about the energy sector and more widely, if there are questions about national security, they are taken forward in the usual way. We invest hugely in ensuring that all our critical national infrastructure is safe and secure from cyber-threats and other threats. That work continues and is a top priority for the Government. We are building the clean power system that delivers energy security, and the Conservatives are opposing it.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
Since the election, over £40 billion of investment has been announced in clean energy, creating good jobs with good wages, and by 2030, the industry could support hundreds of thousands of new jobs. We will soon publish our clean energy workforce strategy, which will set out in more detail where and how we will deliver the jobs of the future. The risk of voting for the Conservatives or Reform is that they would put all those jobs in jeopardy.
Becky Gittins
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s clean power action plan is accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources and creating quality jobs in areas like mine in north Wales. A major expansion at the port of Mostyn will create 300 new jobs, as it prepares to increase its support for the offshore wind farm sector. Does the Minister agree that this is not the time to hold back, and that we should invest in green energy to tackle climate change, secure our energy supply and provide skilled jobs for my constituents in Clwyd East?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that speech—[Interruption.] I mean, for that beautiful short question. I welcome the jobs that are coming to the port of Mostyn. This Labour Government are driving investment in our communities from carbon capture, hydrogen, nuclear, wind and solar energy. Opposition Members have to explain to the British people why they want to leave them colder, poorer, in the pockets of dictators and with less good jobs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I hear that it is your birthday, Mr Speaker. Congratulations! The UK Government have announced £14 billion for new, extremely expensive nuclear energy projects, while crucial shovel-ready green developments in Scotland are receiving nothing at all. Both Cruachan 2 and the Acorn project are awaiting the Minister’s approval to create new green jobs in Scotland. When will that money be made available?
Sarah Jones
When we hear the SNP opposing jobs, it seems sad for the people of Scotland. We are supporting jobs up and down Scotland. The hon. Gentleman does not have long to wait to hear about Acorn, because the spending review will be published later this week.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and very many happy returns. We obviously welcome new jobs when they are created, but will the Minister acknowledge the destructive impact of her Government’s policies on jobs in oil and gas in the North sea? On Friday evening in Westhill, in my constituency, I met many workers who are terrified for their future, their family and their community, because the skilled jobs in the supply chain that is maintained by oil and gas are not being replaced at the pace needed by renewables. That is due to a slowdown in offshore wind deployment and a steep decline in oil and gas activity. Will she not admit that the Government have got this dreadfully wrong?
Sarah Jones
Under the previous Government, we lost 70,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry and more than 1,000 jobs in the ceramics industry. We produced only 30% of the steel that we need in this country, and the chemicals industry fell by 30%. The Conservatives’ record is shocking. We are putting together a plan that will ensure we can transition a lot of people from oil and gas to renewables; as the hon. Gentleman knows, the skills are very similar. We are trying to make that easier through our passport system. We are developing a workforce plan, which we will publish in due course, that will involve hundreds of thousands of jobs. Why do Conservative Members oppose that?
Andrew Bowie
There has been no contrition, or acknowledgement of the people losing their jobs today in this country as a direct result of the Government’s destructive policies. Some 3,000 jobs were lost in July 2024. Robert Gordon University estimates that there are 400 job losses every two weeks. Offshore Energies UK predicts that there will be 42,000 job losses unless there is significant policy change. The Just Transition Commission warns that 120,000 jobs may go by 2030, and that there is no prospect of a just transition, because the supply chain is just upping sticks and moving overseas. Will the Minister not acknowledge that this is the wrong course to take? Will she at least apologise to the men and women losing their jobs today?
Sarah Jones
The North sea will continue to play an important role for years to come, which is why we are keeping existing fields open for their lifetime. This is a declining base, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. This is not where the jobs of the future will be. They will be in the clean energy transition, which we are investing in at pace; there have been huge announcements today on nuclear, and there are the spending review announcements to come. We are investing in the jobs of the future; he is stuck in the past.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We are extending the warm home discount to more than 6 million households, doubling the number of families that will get support this winter. That is the difference that a Labour Government make. We are providing support for those who need it while we sprint to clean power by 2030, so that we can get off the energy rollercoaster and bear down on bills for good.
Mrs Brackenridge
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the extension of the warm home discount to all households on means-tested benefits from this winter. Many low-income households were excluded because their homes were not classed as having a high cost to heat. In Wolverhampton North East, only 18% of households benefited from the discount in 2023-24. Can the Minister confirm that the new scheme is simple, fair and focused on those who are most in need?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important point. I can confirm that we will remove the hard-to-heat criterion, which means that support will go to low-income households that we know need help with their energy bills.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the Minister for outlining the support available to households with high energy bills. Some 6,000 households in my constituency benefit from the warm home discount, but many in Barking and Dagenham, alongside almost 2 million other households in this country, are dealing with high energy debt. What plans are under way for energy debt relief schemes, or a scheme to help those who built up debt under the previous Government, so that we can support them now? Unlike the Conservatives, we do not abandon those households suffering from debt that arose as a result of the legacy of past Governments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are working with Ofgem to put in place a debt support scheme to deal with the huge rise in energy debt that we saw during the energy crisis, which the Conservatives failed to deal with. That will provide much-needed support, whether through debt write-offs or debt repayment plans. It will mean that households that cannot afford their energy bills, are struggling, and will never pay that debt are provided with support.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The Government are targeting measures based on people’s income, but will they look at the issue of rural homes? Many thousands of people live in poorly insulated homes in isolated areas; families there are left in the cold in the winter.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know there are parts of the country where homes are not up to standard and families are struggling with bills. That is why our warm homes plan is so important. We will target homes across the country and ensure that we provide a range of measures, from insulation through to solar and heat pumps, so we can ensure that homes are warmer and cheaper to run.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker! Like me, you don’t count the years; you make the years count. You are doing very well at that.
I welcome the Minister’s answer. She has in the past been keen to ensure that Northern Ireland does not lose out on schemes. Yesterday, the decision on the winter fuel payment was announced to the House, which we all welcome. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), was clear that the legislation starts here, but help for Northern Ireland will come from here as well. Will there be the same help for those in Northern Ireland, who need it as much as people here?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are working across all nations to ensure that households get the support that they need. I will be in Northern Ireland next week, where I will talk to the devolved Administration about how we can work together to ensure that homes across the country are supported.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Accelerating the clean energy transition away from insecure and expensive fossil fuels towards cheap, clean renewables and nuclear power will help decouple gas and electricity prices. As a result, we will reduce the exposure of consumer bills to volatile international crises and ensure that we never again face the kind of cost of living crisis that the last Government presided over.
Edward Morello
New solar is 11% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel, and onshore wind is 39% cheaper, yet the marginal pricing system that ties electricity costs to the market price of gas has resulted in British consumers enduring the fourth-highest global energy prices during a cost of living crisis. Does the Minister agree that decoupling electricity prices from the gas market is essential if consumers are to enjoy lower-cost energy?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expertise in this area, which he often brings to the House. He is absolutely right that decoupling from volatile and expensive gas prices is critical, and the journey we are on to develop clean power by 2030 will do that. Our objective is to deliver a clean power system where gas only provides the back-up, rather than setting the price, as it currently does. Too often—80% of the time—we rely on gas to set the price. We are trying to remove that, and to build a clean power system for the future.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I think we all agree that it is important for us to protect all consumers from the volatile oil and gas prices that my hon. Friend has mentioned. However, while we shift and undertake that reform, has the Minister considered the benefits of having an energy social tariff, to protect customers now from those volatile oil and gas prices, and to prepare them for a cleaner, better and reformed energy market in the future?
Michael Shanks
I always agree with my hon. Friend, but on her initial point, I probably do not. I am not sure that we do all agree in this House that we should remove the volatility of fossil fuel prices. Some want us to remain linked to fossil fuels for longer and longer. We are determined to remove that vulnerability from people’s bills, so that we do not face the price spikes that many families still struggle with. She is right to point to targeted support as well. We are looking at social tariffs. Part of the challenge is that the phrase means different things to different people, but we are clear that bringing down bills for everyone is a top priority for this Government, and the clean power mission is how we will do it.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Energy Secretary has said that there is a “principled case” for removing green taxes from electricity bills, and the cost being met by increases in green taxes on gas bills. That would be a net tax rise for every household—80% of the country—that uses gas. This was not an argument that he made before the election, so can the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any increase in taxes, charges or levies on gas bills?
Michael Shanks
On the Government Benches, we are trying to cut people’s bills as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman was a core part of a Government who failed to do that for many years. I am surprised that he did not rise to congratulate Great British Energy on its investment in solar panels on schools and hospitals, because his constituents are benefiting from one on a hospital and one on a school. He should welcome that.
Nick Timothy
If the hon. Member wants to talk about my constituency, he can talk about the betrayal of the Sunnica application, which is being imposed on my constituency by the Energy Secretary. The public will see that the answer was not a “no” from the Minister. Families across the country should be worried; this is becoming a pattern. For weeks, I asked Ministers about their plan to align with the European carbon price. For weeks, they denied that it would happen, and then, once the local elections were done, they did it, increasing electricity bills by stealth for every family and business in the country. Now it is the same for gas bills. When will the Minister be straight with people and admit that the Government are adding to the bills of families and businesses, not cutting them?
Michael Shanks
The House will have heard the shadow Minister’s failure to welcome solar panels on a hospital and a school in his constituency, but he can deal with his own constituents. On the question of the emissions trading system, on one side, we have National Grid, Energy UK, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Make UK and the Confederation of British Industry welcoming it. On the other side, we have the shadow Minister and the deputy leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). I think I know who I would take my advice from.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can access the benefits of our net zero transition, including rural communities, which will play a vital role in creating jobs and hosting infrastructure. That is why we have set up the £5 million Great British Energy community fund to support clean energy project development, including in constituencies like my hon. Friend’s.
Maya Ellis
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker. Chipping Community Energy in my constituency is a brilliant ground source heat loop feasibility project. We know that grid infrastructure is weaker in rural areas, and there is a risk that more remote areas get left behind in the move to decarbonisation, in the same way that they did with the broadband roll-out. Will the Minister share what role she sees local initiatives, like Chipping Community Energy, playing in our overall plans for energy security and affordability, and what steps she is taking to help such projects to provide more cheap energy to our rural communities?
Kerry McCarthy
That sounds like a great project. We are absolutely committed to recognising the role that community energy groups, like the Chipping Community Land Trust, can play in ensuring that communities directly benefit from the energy transition. The trust was awarded £100,000 through the former rural community energy fund, and GB Energy is continuing that work through its community fund, helping to unleash the wave of community energy projects that the Secretary of State spoke about earlier. The Government and Ofgem will be working to tackle policy and regulatory barriers to these projects happening.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In the spirit of trying to get as many birthday wishes into one Hansard record as possible, Mr Speaker, from one part of the greatest county in the country to another, I wish you a very happy birthday.
In the context of the dash to net zero, rural economies can also be damaged by the infrastructure that is being put in. The Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cabling corridor and substations will cause damage to rural businesses over 20 miles along the cabling route, including disruption caused during the construction stage. What efforts is the Minister making to assess cases in which the infrastructure that is being put in place does more damage to rural economies than it benefits them?
Kerry McCarthy
If rural communities are to benefit from the clean energy transition, it is important that they play a role in hoping to host the infrastructure. When the Great British Energy Bill went through Parliament, there was much discussion about ensuring that communities that host the new infrastructure do not lose out. I can send the hon. Gentleman details of exactly how his community can engage with that process.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
In 2025-26 alone, we will upgrade up to 300,000 homes through the warm homes plan and other measures. That is more than double the number of homes upgraded last year. Later this year, we will set out more details of a warm homes plan to upgrade up to 5 million homes, and there will be more details in the spending review tomorrow.
Lisa Smart
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. My Lib Dem predecessor, the much-missed Andrew Stunell, pushed for the zero carbon homes programme during his time in the 2010 to 2015 Government, having brought in his first Bill on that subject back in 2004. Sadly, those standards were scrapped as soon as the Conservatives were governing on their own. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had those standards been reached in 2016, households would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes. The Secretary of State earlier mentioned the future homes standard, which is bringing in welcome steps on solar panels and so on. When will the Government go further to reach zero carbon homes standards with a fabric-first approach?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises an important question. The failure to have a zero carbon homes standard or future homes standard in place has meant that we have built over 1 million homes since then that are now going to have to be retrofitted. That makes no financial sense. It is right to put those upgrades in as standard from the get-go, and we have done a lot of work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and house builders to make sure that can be done in a way that also means we can build lots of homes.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
What is the Secretary of State doing to make it more affordable for households to make their homes energy-efficient? The current model is that those who can afford to outlay some funding then get a taxpayer-funded subsidy, but those who cannot put down those first few thousand do not get that support.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am working with the Minister for Energy Consumers and others across Government on this as part of the warm homes plan. We have to make sure that those who can least afford it can take advantage of the huge opportunities of insulation, solar panels and batteries.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Warm wishes for your birthday, Mr Speaker—and I am going to talk about warmth, as you might expect. Over the last decade, we have seen so many households living in Dickensian conditions, with dark, damp and cold homes, and having to choose between heating and eating. With the warm homes plan widely recognised as the most cost-effective way of making homes warmer, healthier and cheaper to heat, can the Secretary of State confirm exactly how many homes will be covered? Is the current scale of the plan truly sufficient to meet the challenge we face?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be ambitious on these issues. Energy efficiency makes such sense for our country. We committed in our manifesto to upgrade 5 million homes and we intend to meet that commitment. I do not want to steal the Chancellor’s thunder, but we will be saying more about that tomorrow.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The consent to develop the Rosebank oilfield was deemed unlawful by the courts. The developer will need to reapply for consent, including an assessment of emissions from burning the fuel produced. We will produce guidance on the environmental assessment of those emissions in due course.
John McDonnell
Have a good one, Mr Speaker!
The big issues to consider in this decision-making process will be the economic and environmental impacts. As the Government develop their thinking, will they consider and report to the House on another issue? Ithaca is one of the companies seeking to benefit from the large profits from the Rosebank development. It is owned by Delek, an Israeli oil conglomerate that has been listed recently by the UN for human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not believe that our Government would want to be associated with a company like that, and many pension funds are now divesting from that company, too. Can we have a report as the Government’s thinking develops on that crucial matter?
Michael Shanks
I will be careful about what I say in this particular case and on the specific application for obvious reasons. We will be publishing guidance very soon on how the scope 3 emissions—the end-use emissions —will be assessed. Any developers with any projects that wish to reapply will then be able to do so. Each project will go through a regulatory process and be considered on its individual merits.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Cabinet Office guidance states that Government Departments should aim to publish a response to a consultation within 12 weeks of the consultation closing. The consultation on environmental impact assessments closed on 8 January, which is 22 weeks ago tomorrow. When will the Department publish the guidance, because it is causing delays to projects in the North sea today?
Michael Shanks
We published the consultation on what we will do with the EIA guidance as quickly as we could. We are now analysing that. It is a complex issue, as I am sure the hon. Lady will understand. We will publish the response and the process that will now be put in place as soon as possible. Any developers that wish to reapply will then be able to do so.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Since the last Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions, the Government have confirmed that rooftop solar panels will be standard for all new build homes, delivered the first 11 solar on schools projects, scrapped the absurd 1-metre heat pump rule, secured Royal Assent for the Great British Energy Bill and, alongside Ofgem, delivered compensation for 40,000 victims of the prepayment meter scandal that happened under the last Government.
Alice Macdonald
The east of England has a unique energy mix from offshore wind, hydrogen and nuclear. I welcome the game-changing investment in Sizewell C today. Can I ask specifically about wind? A new report from EastWind and Opergy says that in the east of England, we need more than 6,500 extra offshore wind farm workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the east of England is central to our energy mission, and can he outline how we will deliver those skilled jobs?
Ed Miliband
The east of England will be a clean energy powerhouse for the country. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about workforce, and we will be publishing the workforce plan soon.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In the dim and distant past, in 2023, the Secretary of State described the Rosebank oilfield as
“a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.
Does he still agree with that?
Ed Miliband
As with any application, there is a process that my Department will go through. We will look at any application in a fair and objective way.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
We are developing proposals that will minimise costs and ensure a fair outcome for consumers throughout the country.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The North sea’s future lies in clean energy, but despite the UK’s billing as a wind superpower, we still import most of our wind turbine components while communities around the North sea are losing jobs. Trade unions and industry are united in calling for £1.1 billion a year to build up domestic renewables manufacturing, but the Chancellor has committed barely half that. Will the Secretary of State work with his Cabinet colleagues to secure the investment that is needed to realise the job-creating potential of the green just transition?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are trying not just to build the renewables that we need for the future, but to bring the good jobs, the manufacturing and the industry along with them. The Prime Minister has announced £200 million of support for supply chains through Great British Energy, and there will be much more to come. We are also working individually with projects and developers to ensure that we bring the jobs here, and that is why the clean industry bonus is so important.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The UK’s energy grid is very resilient, but we are investing to make sure that remains the case in the decades ahead. Ofgem requires transmission owners and distribution network operators to make sure that there is an efficient, economic and co-ordinated system of electricity transmission in the country—and to make sure that it works—but if he wishes to raise any specific issues, I would be happy to hear from him.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Michael Shanks
Yes, and I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss exactly those points. We encourage all developers to provide a range of local community benefits, and we are consulting on whether that should go further, but in the meantime we want to see community benefit schemes that are as strong as possible for all energy projects, right across the country.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
This is the subject of ongoing discussions between our Department and, in particular, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: we want to ensure that we are not giving with one hand and taking away with the other. That is part of the remodelling that will enable us to supply international climate finance to the people who need it most.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is right, in that we had ambitious plans in our manifesto to create thousands of jobs funded through Great British Energy—something that he failed to vote for, so he is now against the investment that will come. We have secured £40 billion-worth of private investment since we came to office, with hundreds of jobs and many, many thousands to come.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We have had challenges with heat networks across the country. That is why we are bringing forward regulations to make sure both that there is a fair price for people on heat networks and that technical standards drive up the quality of heat networks, so that people can have cheaper bills.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises a really important point about the level of standing order charges, and this is something that Ofgem has consulted on. The complexity is that if we redistribute standing order charges, it can have significant adverse distributional effects, but Ofgem is seeking to have low standing order charges for some customers.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Wasco Coatings in my constituency has invested significantly in its Hartlepool operation in anticipation of the ambitious net zero plans on Teesside. We now learn that there is a possibility that the contract may go abroad, which threatens Hartlepool jobs. Does the Minister agree that British investment must back British jobs, and does she have a message for those deciding on the contract?
Sarah Jones
The Northern Endurance Partnership, which is developing the infrastructure to transport CO2 across Teesside and the Humber, will create thousands of jobs. There is a 50% local content target, but we want to exceed that, and I urge the partnership to use British suppliers. I think my hon. Friend is meeting its representatives this week. We stand ready to do so, and we want everyone to buy British.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Minimum half-hourly charges will also help customers to use smart solutions and make savings, and all the evidence collected under the last Government shows that when consumer-led flexibility was offered, people really took advantage of it.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Making community energy the centrepiece of the Government’s clean power plan will foster support for new schemes by putting the public in the driving seat to choose where, and at what scale, projects can fit into local landscapes. To unleash the full potential of community energy, will Ministers consider implementing the long-standing proposals to enable these schemes to sell electricity directly to local people?
Kerry McCarthy
The Government’s licence exemption schemes already allow small-scale suppliers, including many community energy groups, to come to market to supply local customers. The Secretary of State has also commissioned Ofgem to work with the Department to explore some of the policy and regulatory barriers to local supply.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. At the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, the council has launched an ambitious plan to go from black to green, creating a combined digital and eco park that includes an AI growth zone. Will the Secretary of State meet me—alongside my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who has championed this cause, and partners—to see for himself the potential of our coalfield communities?
Ed Miliband
That also sounds really good, and it sounds like a really important initiative. The idea of AI growth zones, which have been promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, is great, and I congratulate my hon. Friend.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I extend an invite to the Secretary of State to come to Aberdeen and meet the highly skilled energy workforce, whose jobs are being put at risk as a result of his policies?
Ed Miliband
I absolutely meet North sea workers and companies. What we need to do for them is build the clean energy future so that they can transition. That is about carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind, and it is about nuclear as well—something that SNP Members oppose. This Government are going to make the investments to make it happen.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Lang may yer lum reek, Mr Speaker.
The Minister may know that we used to have nuclear power in Ayrshire, creating many well-paying jobs. Does he think we could see small modular reactors at Hunterston, and what does he think of the SNP’s abject failure to bring nuclear to Scotland, even though it has planned for an independent Scotland to rely on English nuclear?
Ed Miliband
The SNP’s is an anti-jobs, anti-investment and anti-clean energy position, and SNP Members should be ashamed of themselves.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
During the last election campaign, the Secretary of State said he would cut energy bills by £300. Could he set out for families and small businesses in Bridgwater the timescale for fulfilling that promise?
Ed Miliband
We said we would cut energy bills by up to £300 by 2030, and that remains our commitment.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Penn-bloodh lowen, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but I am concerned that far less attention has been given to another low-carbon, low marginal cost, firm baseload power source—deep geothermal. By some estimates, there are over 30 GW of geothermal energy potential in the Cornish granite batholith alone. What are the Government doing to assess and unlock this untapped geothermal potential?
Michael Shanks
As always, my hon. Friend is a great champion for his local area and its different energy sources. I am very happy to meet him, as geothermal has huge opportunities. I think some of it has yet to come to market, but we look at all opportunities for delivering clean power.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—I suspect you may be relieved that we cannot sing in the Chamber.
I was recently approached by a small business owner in my constituency of Edinburgh West who faces bill of almost £30,000 for the period of lockdown when her business was closed. She is getting no sense out of British Gas Lite about why she is facing this bill, and I am getting no response from it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can find out what is happening?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The York Central development site at the heart of my constituency has been found to be a rich source of deep geothermal energy. Will the Minister meet me to look at how we can bring this on stream to heat the 2,500 homes and support the 12,500 jobs there will be on that site?
Michael Shanks
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. There are a number of schemes like this already. The Mining Remediation Authority has a number of projects under way. There is huge potential, and I am happy to meet her to discuss it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and despite what has been said by colleagues on the Benches in front of me, you do not look a day over 75. [Laughter.]
While the Minister is claiming to save the world by closing down the oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom, Centrica has signed a £20 billion deal with Norway to supply gas to the United Kingdom. How does he justify the loss of British jobs, giving away tax revenue and putting growth in jeopardy by closing down an industry that is still much needed?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on two fronts. First, we are not closing down oil and gas. It will continue to play a part for many years to come, but there is a transition under way, as there has been for many years. The truth of the matter is that, while we want to create the jobs that come next, he turns his face against all the investment in what those jobs will be, which means that, under his plan, the transition will not lead to a future for that incredibly skilled workforce. We are determined to do it differently, so that there are good, well-paid jobs in the future and a secure energy mix for decades to come.
Mr Speaker
I thank everybody who has wished me well for my birthday. I got the best birthday present, and that was the knighthood for Sir Billy Boston, who had to leave Wales to play rugby league. This is the first knighthood for rugby league, so it is the best present I could have had.
Nuclear Power: Investment
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about Government plans for investment in new nuclear power.
Sixteen years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary I delivered a statement to this House identifying potential sites for new nuclear. I said:
“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]
That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.
The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.
First, back in the late 2000s, when I was Energy Secretary, I identified Sizewell as a potential site for new nuclear. It has taken 16 years, but I am incredibly proud that today we are announcing £14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C, the first Government-funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s—a strategic partnership with France, with EDF intending to invest alongside us.
I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) in advocating for this project and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her advocacy for nuclear as a whole. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is not in his place, when he was Minister for nuclear.
Sizewell C will power the equivalent of around 6 million homes with clean, home-grown energy for 60 years, and will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships—well-paid, highly skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank the GMB, Unite, and Prospect trade unions, which are brilliant champions for the nuclear industry. Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion-worth of contracts with 311 companies, and will eventually work with 3,500 suppliers in all four nations of the UK.
This project is good value for money for the taxpayer, because there will be a clear economic return on the investment, and for the bill payer, because all the due diligence we have done demonstrates that the cost of the clean power it will supply will be cheaper than the alternative. We expect the final investment decision on the project, including through the capital raise from the private sector, to be completed in the summer, when we will set out further detail. This is a new generation of nuclear power, promised for years and delivered by this Labour Government.
Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.
In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.
Thirdly, beyond the immediate horizon, nuclear fusion offers the potential of an energy-abundant future. Britain already leads, thanks to the pioneering work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, but unlike in the past, we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today, we are pledging to invest more than £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion, including in the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme, which will help to progress the new prototype fusion plant at West Burton. I congratulate the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, on her tireless advocacy for this project, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on their advocacy. This will be the first fusion plant of its kind in the world, and it will be on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Under a Labour Government, Britain will lead the clean energy transition and trailblaze the technologies of the future.
Fourthly, our nuclear ambitions do not stop there. As we move ahead on these projects, we see huge potential right across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector-led advanced nuclear projects—advanced modular reactors and SMRs—to be deployed in the UK. And we will task Great British Energy Nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals, with the National Wealth Fund exploring potential investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is that if it wants to build new nuclear, Britain is open for business.
I can also tell the House that, following the incredible campaigning work of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), my Department has asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Cumberland council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside, delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.
We also know that this is an industry that demands long-term thinking. Therefore, having announced these steps today, we will build on our 2030 clean power action plan and set out our plans for the energy system, including our ambitions and next steps on nuclear, into the 2030s and beyond.
Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The Conservative party is a pro-nuclear party and we welcome any decisions, backed by investment, that increase Britain’s nuclear capacity, because we cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy without it. Although the investment announced today by the Secretary of State is significant, it is a fraction of the £230 billion cost, which will ultimately be borne by consumers, of his plan to decarbonise the grid. Unlike the intermittent technologies backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power. It generates inertia to stabilise our grid. Nuclear power plants require substantially less new grid infrastructure compared with dispersed generation from wind and solar. It is to the shame of successive Governments over many years that Britain relinquished its status as a world leader in civil nuclear technologies. In 1965, we had more nuclear reactors than the United States, the USSR and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 1966, we built 10 nuclear power stations, but we gave all that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1994 and has fallen consistently since then.
Labour came to power in 1997, saying that it saw no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations. In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative Government who planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years and it is thanks to that work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of these announcements today. Can he reiterate, despite the headlines this morning, that the final investment decision has not yet been made? He said in his statement that he will announce it in the summer, but can he give us a more precise date when we will be told the total Government investment and the private capital raised?
This statement is a downgrade on what the previous Government put in motion. Today, the Energy Secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation and no news on Wylfa. The nuclear industry is expecting news of a third gigawatt scale reactor. The previous Government purchased the land and committed to build, but on this today the Energy Secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the planning inherited for a third gigawatt scale plant at Wylfa and will he recommit to the Conservative policy of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050?
Although it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build our first small modular reactors, this is a downgrade on what was previously planned. Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has awarded just one technology rather than two as set out previously? Furthermore, will he commit, as other countries have, to going faster?
Canada has approved a plan for four SMRs by 2029. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. The contrast between this caution on nuclear and the Government’s rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years, while betting the house on unreliable and intermittent renewable technologies and shutting down British oil and gas in the North sea, could not be clearer. We need the Energy Secretary to focus on the positive, not to stake our country’s future and people’s bills on ideology.
Ed Miliband
I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.
On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.
In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises, but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very well on this subject. I agree with him about the huge jobs potential from new nuclear and the timelines. My priority when we came into office was to get these things over the line, because there had been so many promises made by the last Government. Long-term promises were made under Boris Johnson for 2050, but they did not deliver anything towards the 24 GW target. My priority was to get on and deliver these things and get them over the line, which we are doing. Then we can look at what the energy needs are going forward and how we meet them. I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear has an essential part to play, alongside all the other clean energy technologies; electricity demand is going to double by 2050, so we need all of them.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue, after years of dither and delay from successive Conservative Governments. It has been 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009, and now, seven Prime Ministers later, we are finally seeing real movement. That is not a success story but a warning. Short-term thinking, poor delivery and exorbitant costs—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will decide when things are out of order. I do not need any help. I want you to get the question finished quickly, so come on.
Pippa Heylings
I cannot help but wonder whether the Secretary of State imagined when he stood at his Dispatch Box back in 2009 that he would be back in 2025 still announcing funding for the same project.
We support investment in clean, home-grown energy. Small modular nuclear reactors have real potential to reduce our dependence on foreign gas—from tyrants like Putin—and help bring down bills, so we welcome the Government’s backing of the nascent technology of small modular reactors and their choice of Rolls-Royce, which is recognised as a first mover across all of Europe. That is where the focus should be—not on large-scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades and so often go over budget. We have to ensure that this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is very real. The Government must be transparent about how this will be paid for, because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security is to invest in home-grown renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, and to upgrade our national grid to deliver that clean power. We look forward to seeing more detail on the long-overdue reform of the outdated first come, first served grid connection system, which is holding back renewable energy projects and could even delay the roll-out of new SMRs. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but the real test is in the delivery of cheaper bills, stronger energy security and a modern energy grid fit for the future.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I feel bad about mentioning this, but she has slightly airbrushed out the role of the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was Energy Secretary for a period, but we will “Trotsky”—to use a familial term of origin—that out of the record.
I sincerely welcome her support for this programme, and she puts the case very well: it is a lesson to some of the Opposition Members sitting behind her that we need all the clean energy technologies; we should not choose between them. Being in favour of nuclear does not mean that we are against wind. I am the biggest enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and all these technologies. Let us have all of them, to get off fossil fuels and meet our electricity and energy demand.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy birthday; you were born only a few months after the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first civil nuclear power plant, so you share that.
The Secretary of State has made the major decision, which is incredibly welcome in west Cumbria, to unlock up to 200 acres of land at Moorside for clean energy projects, including new nuclear. This issue has been stuck for many years, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts on it, the decision he made and the work he has done with the Cumberland Nuclear Future Board to make it happen. Will the Secretary of State continue to work with me and local partners to drive the project through so that we get something delivered at the site? Secondly, can he say more about the regulatory taskforce that is being undertaken at the moment so that we can cut through the bureaucracy and build reactors more quickly?
Ed Miliband
To reassure you, Mr Speaker, you look much younger than the Calder Hall nuclear power station.
Ed Miliband
Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I, too, wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I very much welcome the statement, which is about the future-visioning and future-proofing of our energy security and production. I particularly welcome the £2.5 billion investment in fusion, including for the STEP—spherical tomahawk for energy production —programme at West Burton in north Nottinghamshire. I thank Ministers for their work to secure that, which is very welcome indeed. The process has already started, with the tender outcomes for the construction and the design and technology to be announced later this year. I am championing British companies, which are very much part of that process.
I am excited about the thousands of jobs and skills in new infrastructure that will be developed because of this programme. The work has already started on the skills partnership, which is stretching right across regions including the east midlands, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. That partnership is working with our further education colleges, our universities and the advanced manufacturing centre in Rotherham. Does the Secretary of State agree that left-behind, red wall areas such as mine are where we need investment to revise our energy production and our industry? This is where we start, and I want to see more.
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy. When I was in discussions with the Chancellor, I did think that if this did not go ahead I would have to answer to my hon. Friend and to the Mayor of the East Midlands, so she was a motivating force in ensuring that the project did go ahead. Her point is crucial: this is about good jobs in areas of the country that really need those good jobs. Last night, I was talking to an apprentice from Sizewell—she went there at age 16 and has been there for a year—about the experience she has had. She gives credit to Sizewell. We can see her career in front of her, and we want that for lots more people.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Assuming that the large nuclear power station at Sizewell C and the small modular reactors both prove to be successful, as we trust they will be, what is the Government’s thinking about the respective roles of each of those two very different types? Which does the Secretary of State think will be the better bet in the long term for the future of the country? Can he assure us that China will have no part in any of this?
Ed Miliband
On the latter point, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. He asks a typically astute question, if I may say so. The truth about these technologies, I think, is that the answer is both. We cannot really make a judgment about this until we see the SMR programme developed. The SMR programme offers something that has eluded nuclear for a long time, which is modularity and replication, and that, as we know from other technologies, is the way to bring down costs and speed up delivery. There is huge potential in both, but large-scale gigawatt can also play an important role.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the SMR announcement, which is great news for Sheffield as Rolls-Royce is already doing significant work at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. When I met Rolls-Royce recently, it said that 70% of its bid could be built and produced in Great Britain. How will the Government hold Rolls-Royce to account for that and ensure that the announcement delivers great jobs and great investment right across the UK?
Ed Miliband
I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible advocacy on this issue, including at the AMRC. She makes such an important point: this will be taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that as much as possible is built in Britain. I make absolutely no apologies for saying that. The answer to her question is that as we negotiate terms with Rolls-Royce over the coming months, that will be a key part of our discussions.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there is nothing for Scotland’s Acorn project. With Grangemouth allowed to close and the fiscal regime ruining the north-east’s energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland is not an afterthought—Scotland is not a thought at all. If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why has money never been found for Scotland’s carbon capture project?
Ed Miliband
Maybe a change in the SNP’s position is coming. Absolutely, if the hon. Lady wants, let us have a discussion about Scottish nuclear power stations. We are in favour of the Acorn project and will say more about that in the coming weeks. But on nuclear power, SNP Members have really got to think again. They are sticking their heads in the sand. This is about jobs, investment and clean energy. They should really rethink.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
If I had known it was your birthday, Mr Speaker, I would have brought you down a Chorley cake, but never mind. As you know, my constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. As the Secretary of State is aware, I am pushing for Heysham also to host new nuclear. Will he tell me how today’s announcement supports nuclear communities such as mine and will enable the next generation of nuclear across the country?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To get slightly into the weeds, the new planning framework that we are consulting on opens up possibilities for new nuclear. Today we have set out the public money that we can commit to new nuclear at this stage. We are seeing this a bit in the US and in other countries with a 50% increase in nuclear investment last year globally. My message to the private sector is that if it is interested in partnering with us and saying to us, “We want to build in places other than those where you’ve put the public investment,” we are absolutely open for business and dialogue.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that it was originally proposed to build a third nuclear power station, based on a Chinese design, at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency. Is a third station—it will not be Chinese—at Bradwell still a possibility, or could it be allocated an SMR?
Ed Miliband
Good nuclear sites, including Bradwell, are always going to be possibilities as far as I am concerned. We are not going to have China building our nuclear power stations, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this with my Department, we will be happy to do so.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
It is clear that this Labour Government are putting pounds behind promises to deliver clean energy and good, skilled jobs in all parts of the country. With that in mind, given its importance to north Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great British Energy Nuclear will prioritise Wylfa?
Ed Miliband
I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question. Wylfa is an incredibly important site that has huge potential for our country. Obviously, over the months ahead Great British Energy Nuclear will look at the role that Wylfa can play in relation to SMRs and large-scale nuclear.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Secretary of State’s message to the private sector is, “If you want to build new nuclear, Britain is open.” Companies have told me that they need decisive and committed leadership from the UK Government to be confident to invest in a new project at Wylfa. I have raised that 11 times in the Chamber, yet today there was no mention of Wylfa. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the UK Government support the delivery of new nuclear projects at Wylfa?
Ed Miliband
Yes, we do. Again, we are open to discussions with the hon. Lady and other colleagues.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I will not say “happy birthday” to you again, Mr Speaker; perhaps we can arrange to sing it next time so that we do not all have to repeat it.
The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome. The other welcome news today is the Government’s commitment to £460 million of investment at Sheffield Forgemasters. That is primarily for defence nuclear, but it also provides extra capacity for civil nuclear. There is a bit of concern about Rolls-Royce’s link with Czechia, so will my right hon. Friend commit to using forgings from Sheffield Forgemasters in the first-of-its-type SMR in this country and build the supply chain so that the vast majority of jobs are provided for British workers?
Ed Miliband
I definitely believe that Sheffield Forgemasters has an incredibly important role to play in our civil nuclear programme. Contractual details for Rolls-Royce and our discussions with the company are for a bit down the road, but in my view, Forgemasters is central to our plans.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Oldbury in my constituency is one of the sites under consideration for SMRs, and I have been told many times that it has many factors going for it, including GB Nuclear’s ownership of it, the nuclear expertise in higher education locally, its existing nuclear history and the potential for co-ordination with the Berkeley site. Given that the old nuclear power station has already been decommissioned, the local community wants to know what the future looks like. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Oldbury is still in the running and will he give a timeline for the decision?
Ed Miliband
As part of the process that we go to from here, Great British Energy Nuclear will look at what is the right place for the SMR fleet and, absolutely, Oldbury is one of the candidates.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. What a wonderful day today is proving to be. As a proud Derby MP, I am delighted to welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to deliver the first of the UK’s small modular reactors. We know that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Mayor of the East Midlands are champions of clean energy jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s decision is good news for the country and for Derby? Also, in backing home-grown SMRs, what will the benefit be for UK workers and those in the east midlands region?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Derby and for Rolls-Royce. It is important to say to the House that this was a fair and open competition, conducted at arm’s length from Ministers. Rolls-Royce came out as the winner and I am incredibly pleased about that. The possibilities for Rolls-Royce are huge in what it can do for SMRs in this country, in the export opportunities and in the jobs in the supply chains. That is the thing about nuclear: it is about the jobs not just at the top of the tree but right across the supply chain that we have the potential to create.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
While I fear that the development of Sizewell C may prove to be a multibillion-pound investment in yesterday’s technology, I welcome the commitment to SMRs in so far as it goes, which is probably the way forward for tomorrow. We have to get from where we are today to there. Why are we going to spend billions of pounds and accumulate masses of wastage importing carbon fuels from overseas instead of developing our own North sea resources?
Ed Miliband
On the nuclear point, there is real potential at Sizewell. I understand the implication of his views on that: to learn from what happened at Hinkley—because it is a replica of Hinkley—and therefore to cut the costs and do it quicker. The aim is to deliver it cheaper and faster. On the wider picture, we may have a difference of view. Mine is that we have to get off insecure fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That is why nuclear has a role and renewables have a role, but the existing North sea fields will be kept open for their lifetime, so oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. New nuclear has the potential not only to power communities across our country, but to create jobs in every constituency. That is why it is particularly extraordinary to hear SNP representatives argue against those jobs. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many new jobs will be created by today’s announcement and what conversations he has had with workplace representatives to ensure that those are genuinely good jobs, with good terms and conditions?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that in all respects. Sizewell alone will create 10,000 jobs at peak and 1,500 apprenticeships. For good safety and other reasons, there is a strong trade union tradition in the nuclear industry, which we intend to uphold. As for the situation in Scotland, it genuinely beggars belief that the SNP would turn its back on such a huge opportunity.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, and having championed the nuclear industry for 20 years in this Parliament, even when it was not popular on either side of the House, I very much welcome today’s announcement, because I have seen over 60 years in my constituency the economic impact of the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Returning to the subject of Scotland, we see the SNP’s intransigence, which is costing Scotland jobs on the nuclear front. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if we will not have nuclear power stations, we can at least have jobs in the supply chain?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his long-standing advocacy on the issue, including when it was not popular. He makes a very good point: we need to see a change in Government in Scotland, to a Labour party that will advocate for nuclear. The supply chain in all four nations of the UK can play a crucial role in the nuclear renaissance that we are announcing today.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement, which represents a massive boost for my constituents in Erewash and a huge vote of confidence for Rolls-Royce just down the road in Derby? How does he foresee the announcement affecting the availability of apprenticeships for kids leaving my local schools in Ilkeston and Long Eaton?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises such an important point. There is a good tradition of apprenticeships in nuclear. I have seen it at Hinkley Point C and we will see it at Sizewell. I am sure, and I will make sure, that we will see it in the SMR programme as well. These are fantastic opportunities for young people and opportunities that we intend to make happen.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell C? In particular, will he assure the public that the construction phase of Sizewell C will not be funded by increases to people’s bills, given that it will be well over a decade—potentially nearer two decades if we look at Hinkley Point—before it produces any new electricity?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman will know that the RAB system that was passed through this House involves the role of bill payers. We believe that that is the right system and will cut the cost compared with Hinkley Point C. The hon. Gentleman appears to oppose many different forms of clean power. He opposes transmission infrastructure for offshore wind and solar, he opposes solar farms, he opposes carbon capture and storage, and I guess he opposes nuclear. I have an all-of-the-above position on clean energy; he seems to have a none-of-the-above position.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I am delighted that Rolls-Royce has been selected to deliver SMRs in the UK. It really is time for us to stop delaying the new fleet of nuclear power stations more broadly. The Secretary of State will remember that he came to my constituency before the election, to the Barnoldswick Rolls-Royce site, and heard that it now supports 400 jobs, whereas pre-pandemic it was 900. This is a huge opportunity for us to create good skilled jobs in all parts of the country, so will he reassure me that the Government as the customer of Rolls-Royce will demand that those jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick and all over the UK and that we stop the offshoring of manufacturing?
Ed Miliband
I was incredibly impressed by what I saw at Barnoldswick. I had to maintain a position of neutrality when I became Secretary of State as to who won the competition, but I am incredibly pleased that Rolls-Royce won the competition fair and square. My hon. Friend makes an important point about making sure that the jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick. I am sure that Rolls-Royce will want to do that.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Capula, based in Stone, is an example of a great British company that has been supplying the electricity-generation industry in this country for many decades. To get the very best for British jobs, how can businesses such as Capula link in at the very earliest stages with the Government as they start to plan how the investment will be made?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; let me take this away. As we embark on this golden age for nuclear, we need to make sure that the supply chain really benefits. Perhaps he could furnish my Department with the details so that we can think about how such companies can benefit?
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement. I have been speaking to people from across my constituency—cleaners, hospitality workers and others—who desperately need the cost of bills to come down. How will the projects announced today, and the other steps the Government are taking to counter the impact of uncertainty in global energy markets, help to stop people in Heywood and Middleton North being out of pocket?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that this is about planning for the long term to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, which are insecure. We saw what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine. Let me give the House one fact: if the Sizewell C plant had been up and running at the time of that crisis, bill payers would have saved £4 billion in 2022-23 alone. That is the security that new nuclear can give us.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State what guarantees are in place to ensure that these jobs go to local people rather than to overseas contractors? Also, what investment in training and skills will be provided to make sure that they go to local people on the ground?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that Members on both sides of the House have raised in different ways. It is absolutely part of what we are going to do to make sure that these jobs come to the UK. There are commitments around 70% of the supply chain spending being in the UK, and my Department will ensure that there is accountability on the part of the companies that will be benefiting from public money, to ensure that we see the maximum benefits across the country in the UK.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. Unfortunately, it is not for viewers in Scotland. Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy, and it should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government’s outdated, backward and frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, they are turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. Does he agree that this is yet another way that the SNP Scottish Government have lost their way?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is so right about this. People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, “Why isn’t it us who are benefiting from this? Why are we not even in the race?” We have lots of Members saying that they want their area to benefit, yet the Scottish Government and the SNP are saying that they want no part of it, and no part of those jobs. That makes no sense.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I also welcome—[Interruption.] It is very unusual for me to welcome anything from the Secretary of State but I welcome this announcement, because nuclear is an important element in providing the baseload for electricity across the United Kingdom. He mentioned delivery five times in his statement, but this is an announcement not a delivery, and there is a period when we will still need the baseload to be provided. Can he tell us how he intends to ensure that the baseload is provided in that interim period, and what discussions he has had with the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland about the suitability of SMRs for supply in Northern Ireland?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman and I have been discussing these energy issues for about 17 years since he was the spokesperson on this, and agreement is rare between us, so I really welcome what he says. I would say to him that these are the steps we have to go through to deliver, and they are incredibly important. To reassure him on his point about the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister will be meeting them next week. We believe that this can benefit all four nations of the United Kingdom, and it is 100% our intention to make that happen.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing our future energy supply and, by doing so, taking control of our energy, protecting family finances and tackling the climate crisis. In addition, I am keen to learn about the Department’s assessment of new technological developments to reduce energy waste, in particular through developing underground thermal energy storage solutions. I am aware of organisations in that sector that are keen to share opportunities with the Government, so what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of thermal storage solutions in reducing energy loss, avoiding curtailment fees and maximising the benefit from energy generated?
Ed Miliband
I know that my hon. Friend has been strongly advocating on these issues in terms of the exciting possibilities for his constituency. My suggestion is that a Minister from my Department—perhaps the Minister for Energy—should meet him and the company concerned about the potential involved.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The announcement today is good news as far as it goes, but the baseload that it will provide will not be on tap for many years to come. How does the Secretary of State propose to fill that gap? Will he now look again at the UK-Morocco power project, which needs a decision soon and could be delivering electrons by the turn of the decade? Does the announcement today affect the likely contract for difference and strike prices eventually reached with the proposed operator?
Ed Miliband
We are looking seriously at the Xlinks project. The right hon. Gentleman is a tireless advocate for it, and I respect him for that. My answer on the baseload question is that we need a combination of things to meet the power that we need, and there are all kinds of different ways in which we can do that. I would also say that part of the job that we are undertaking is to make sure that we can get Hinkley Point C delivered as quickly as possible, because that can also make an important contribution. On his last point, the decisions today do not affect the decisions on Xlinks. Those are separate decisions.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I welcome the statement today, which is moving towards an energy mix that is less weather dependent. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of investment in nuclear fusion. There is one constant about nuclear fusion, which is that, starting from the original ideas in the 1950s, it has always been 50 years in the future. The International Energy Agency is still predicting that the earliest that nuclear fusion will be providing energy on to the grid will be the second half of this century. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if not, why not?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is definitely right about the old saying on nuclear fusion. I think maybe it is coming a bit closer. There have been really important breakthroughs, particularly in the UK, and we are determined to invest in them. I do not think anyone can say for certain when it will arrive, but the prototype fusion project is a really exciting step on that journey.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Penblwydd hapus i chi, Mr Llefarydd—happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The nuclear community at Trawsfynydd remains disappointed not to be on GBN’s SMR site and will continue to push for that and also for alternative uses. Security of supply of medical radioisotopes is critical to avoid the ethical nightmare of rationing diagnoses and treatments for a range of diseases including cancer. The Welsh Government’s Project Arthur will see north Wales become the home of a public sector national laboratory to produce medical radioisotopes. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to help the Welsh Government to realise Project Arthur at Trawsfynydd?
Ed Miliband
This is why these statements are important. I think I need to check the answer, because I do not want to give a flippant answer to the right hon. Lady’s incredibly serious question. Let me write to her to give her a proper answer.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. While I welcome this fantastic announcement, Scotland will unfortunately not benefit due to the SNP’s ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment and thousands of well-paid secure Scottish jobs and blocking growth across our Scottish communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and, indeed, Ayrshire need a new political direction, and that the only way to get that will be at the ballot box next year?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well. I notice that SNP Members have sort of disappeared; they are probably a bit embarrassed. She is absolutely right about this. In a sense, it comes into sharp focus today because we can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments, but not in Scotland because of the position of the SNP Government. It makes no sense.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Energy security is important, so I welcome this investment in nuclear. One more small modular reactor can power a million homes using just two football pitches-worth of land, while solar needs 2,000 acres of good-quality farmland to power 50,000 homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of food security as well as energy security, reconsider the use of good-quality farmland for solar, and concentrate instead on producing nuclear?
Ed Miliband
We are operating under the previous Government’s planning guidance when it comes to the best agricultural land. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, we need all the clean energy resources that are at our disposal—solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. I am for all of the above.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that the Government will make a statement later today to give an update on the middle east.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Today’s announcement that £2.5 billion will be invested in the small modular reactor programme is fantastic news for the country. It will help bring energy bills down, power homes and create jobs. It is amazing news for Derby, too, because the technology behind the SMRs has its roots in the technology developed at Rolls-Royce Submarines half a century ago. As the Government move forward with investment and delivery, and the Secretary of State approaches the contractual aspects, will he ensure that we build on what we have in Derby, such as the Nuclear Skills Academy, and the good jobs already there, so that we can grow opportunity for the wider region and the country as a whole?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. Derby should be incredibly proud of Rolls-Royce winning the competition, and incredibly excited about the possibilities for young people in Derby and across the wider region. Now we must ensure that, working with Rolls-Royce, we deliver on that promise, and that is what we intend to do.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) asked perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions about the cost of this whole project. Is there a private finance initiative element involved, and what will it cost? How ultimately will we dispose of the nuclear waste, and who will pay the decommissioning costs in 60 years’ time? The nuclear industry does not have a great record on strike price, decommissioning costs or the cost of dealing with waste.
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman asks perfectly legitimate questions. I am glad to say that decommissioning is in at the beginning of the financing model, as part of the overall costs. We will lay out total costs when the final investment decision is made. Similarly, on the regulated asset base costs—I know that he genuinely cares about the climate crisis—all the evidence we have shows that this is our lowest-cost alternative, compared with other low-carbon technologies, so it is a crucial part of the energy mix.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Labour Government on this incredibly important investment announcement. As a physicist by training, I particularly welcome the investment in fusion technology, as well as traditional fission. I am sure that this investment will bring closer the final outcome that we want. Will he ensure that the benefit of this investment is felt across all our communities by using a predominantly UK supply chain, and will he ensure that all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw receive Government support, including the provision of nuclear fuel, the decommissioning and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and even the reuse of currently stockpiled nuclear waste products in future generations of reactors?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point: across the lifecycle of nuclear and across the supply chain, there are important economic opportunities. The importance of realising that potential is a constant theme of the questions that we have heard today, and that is what we intend to do.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Global tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon have announced plans to use SMRs to power their data centres, so they have trust in SMRs. I happen to believe that they should be the future of nuclear in this country. I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. The announcement states that a new public company, GB Energy Nuclear, will be set up. Will he set out why a new company is required, how much it will cost the public purse, and why it is based in Warrington? I have nothing against Warrington, of course, but why has the decision been made to place the company there? Will he outline when he expects meaningful deployment of the modular reactors?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman asks good questions. On the first, GB Energy Nuclear is a development of Great British Nuclear, which is based in Warrington. On deployment, I am aware of the record of people who promise deployment that is then not delivered, but the truth is that we expect a final investment decision in the next few years, and deployment in the early to mid-2030s—I think that is the fairest way of putting it. I agree with him about the potential. I also agree—this is why I have said that I am open to the role of the private sector—that private sector partners may want to come in and build sooner, and that would be great.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the investment in our energy security and jobs. I know from my visit to Sizewell with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that jobs in the nuclear industry are good, well paid and highly skilled. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in part thanks to the strong relationship between business, trade unions and the Government in that sector, and that there is much to be learned from that relationship in other parts of the energy sector and beyond?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend characteristically puts it incredibly well. The nuclear industry offers us a model of good employee relations, and there is a good, strong role for trade unions in ensuring safety and guaranteeing good terms and conditions for workers. That is a lesson that other parts of the energy industry, including the renewables sector, can definitely learn from.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
New jobs in clean energy are very welcome. Many of the skilled jobs at Hinkley Point C in the south-west are going to young people from beyond the area. Given the social mobility challenges in East Anglia and west Somerset, will the Secretary of State comment on investment in colleges and skills to encourage applications from the local area for those new jobs and apprenticeships?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That was certainly my impression when I went to Hinkley Point C, when I saw the impact that it has on the local economy. We want to do the same at Sizewell C. There are plans to start a local college, modelling in a way some of the stuff that was done at Hinkley Point C. He is so right about the massive opportunities here, which we must exploit.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
As a child, Sizewell was an important word to me, like Wylfa, Hunterston, Dungeness, Dounreay and Hinkley, because they were places where my father, based in Gateshead, went to work. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the announcement is part of bringing back those fantastic safe jobs, which are so important for Gateshead and the nuclear industry?
Ed Miliband
I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that question and talks about his heritage and family history. That reflects something real. The nuclear industry has a great tradition in this country. It went through a sort of extended hiccup, I think it is fair to say, but it is really important that we bring it back. Those are good, long-term secure jobs that people can take pride in. We should absolutely embrace that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on fusion energy and for the east midlands, I say a huge thank you on behalf of my constituents and my region for the two major announcements: Rolls-Royce winning the SMR contract, and the £2.5 billion for fusion energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that such large infrastructure projects offer huge apprenticeship opportunities for my region, and will he commit to meeting me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to discuss how the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station can play its role?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his two-hatted advocacy on these issues. He makes an important point. The potential of the new prototype fusion plant is huge, as is the wider potential of nuclear. I look forward to discussing that with him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the clear positivity in every word he has said. I very much welcome the news that nuclear energy is to be secured for the United Kingdom, bringing job security and many contracts, and we look forward to seeing how we can all benefit across this great nation. Can he confirm that companies from the United Kingdom will be able to secure contracts to supply materials and manpower? How can Government ensure that each area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from this massive investment?
Ed Miliband
It is really important that there is a four-nations approach to the supply chain contracts; that is something I am very keen to ensure. There will be thousands of contracts in the supply chain, with huge opportunities for Northern Ireland, and I am determined to deliver them.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Andy Burnham’s Atom Valley mayoral development zone for advanced manufacturing will be based in Rochdale, Oldham and Bury, and it is so named in honour of Ernest Rutherford’s groundbreaking research at the University of Manchester on splitting the atom. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that today’s huge public investment in both nuclear and nuclear fusion will rely on precisely the kind of cutting-edge research that will be done at the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Rochdale?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question and on the new centre, which is incredibly appropriately named. We should celebrate our history on these issues, and the way to honour our history is by building the future for nuclear—that is what today is all about.
Point of Order
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given the Speaker’s Office advance sight of this point of order on process, following proceedings last night in relation to new clause 82 tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was not put for a separate decision. First, I want to say very clearly that this is no criticism or challenge of the decision of the Clerks, Deputy Chairs or Chairs, for whom I have immense respect, but it is a request for clarification on the process and the decision that was come to last night. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the following.
New clause 82 was accepted for a separate decision yesterday, and it was signed by over 70 Members of Parliament. The Member who tabled the new clause, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), had indicated outside the Chamber before the conclusion of the proceedings that he would not push the new clause to a vote, and that is his right. However, advice was given to the Chair that the Chair has discretion not to mention or put the Question at the conclusion of proceedings, despite the new clause being allocated for separate decision through the usual channels; thus, when the conclusion of proceedings came, there was no mention of new clause 82.
Precedent in this House says that another Member who has signed the amendment can push the new clause to a vote. However, that option was not given to a Member who wished to do so and had signed the amendment. “Erskine May” states under paragraph 28.139, titled “Conclusion of proceedings on consideration”:
“If the time available for debate on consideration under the terms of a programme order has been exhausted, Standing Order No 83E is engaged. In order to bring proceedings to a conclusion, the Speaker must put forthwith the following questions (but no others):
a. any question already proposed from the Chair;
b. any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
c. the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate decision;
d. the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister; and
e. any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.”
Another example comes in Standing Order No. 32, which says in sub-clause (1):
“In respect of any motion or any bill under consideration on report or any Lords amendment to a bill, the Speaker shall have power to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed thereto.”
Sub-clause (5) states:
“The powers conferred on the Speaker by this order shall not be exercised by the Deputy Speaker save during the consideration of the estimates.”
I have a concern that this has set a precedent. Over 70 Members across the House who had signed a new clause did not have the chance to put it to a vote last night. The Member who tabled the clause spoke to it and outlined the measures that it would bring into the legislation. I am worried that Members from all parties across the House who have signed amendments and new clauses will not have the opportunity to put them to a vote just because the Chair decides they have the discretion to eradicate that Question from being put in the proceedings of this House. I would be grateful for your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe you could offer a meeting with the Principal Clerk, so that I can discuss my concerns about this issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. I can assure him and the House that nothing irregular or, indeed, unusual took place last night. It is usual for the Speaker to give provisional advance notice of amendments and new clauses that are expected to be selected for separate decision. However, it is not infrequent for the Chair to make changes based on new information that comes to light during the course of the debate, particularly when the lead signatory to an amendment or new clause indicates that they do not wish to move it.
Only an amendment or new clause that has been moved by a Member needs to be withdrawn with the leave of the House before the Question is put. This only applies to the lead amendment or new clause in any group. In this instance, the Member had not been called to move the new clause, so there was nothing to withdraw. It is wholly appropriate and normal for the Chair to decide not to call a new clause or amendment for a separate decision when the lead signatory has indicated they do not wish to move it. Ideally, this indication should have been made in the course of the debate by the Member who tabled the new clause. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) knows very well how to touch base with the Table Clerks and the staff in the Speaker’s Office.
Bill Presented
British Indian Ocean Territory (Sovereignty and Constitutional Arrangements) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Priti Patel, supported by Andrew Rosindell, Wendy Morton, James Cartlidge, Mr Mark Francois, Helen Grant, Jesse Norman, Alex Burghart, Andrew Griffith, Sir Mel Stride, Mr Richard Holden and Mike Wood, presented a Bill to make provision about sovereignty and constitutional arrangements in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago; to prohibit the making of payments of public funds to the government of another country in connection with the sovereignty or constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory, unless authorised by Parliament; to require the Secretary of State to consult and engage with British Chagossians in relation to any proposed changes to the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 258).
Freedom of Expression (Religion or Belief System)
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about freedom of expression in relation to religion or belief systems; and for connected purposes.
I do not believe that Mohammed was a Prophet sent by God. I do not accept the instructions he said he received from the Archangel Gabriel. I do not accept that the Sunna, or body of Islamic laws, has any relevance to me. I respect the religious beliefs of others, but I do not mind if Mohammed is satirised, criticised or mocked. I am not a Muslim, and I choose not to live by the moral codes set out by Islam. I am a Christian, and I should make it clear that I do not think anybody should be prosecuted for satirising, criticising or mocking Jesus either.
England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008, and Scotland abolished them in 2021, but even then, those laws had not been used for decades. The last blasphemy trial took place in 1977, and the state has not brought a public prosecution for blasphemy in more than a century, but now, blasphemy laws are back. I have been advised not to refer to two high-profile cases of people being arrested, charged and prosecuted for causing harassment, alarm or distress to Muslims or even, nonsensically, to Islam itself. While I will keep my speech to the conceptual, I invite the House to recall that there are real examples of what I raise in the criminal justice system right now.
The issue is the way that sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are being used—far beyond the intent of Parliament—to police what we can and cannot say about Islam. I will come to the details of sections 4 and 5, but first I want to say something about the intent of the Public Order Act. The long title of the Act makes it clear that its purpose was to abolish some common law and statutory offences to make way for new offences relating to public order. Nowhere in the Second Reading debate from 1986 did anybody raise the need to protect religions or followers of religions from offence. The context of the Act was football hooliganism and the riots in Brixton and Broadwater Farm.
It is true that part III of the Act created new offences relating to racial hatred, and this was amended to include religious hatred by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. However, section 29J of the Public Order Act, to which we will return, says:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”.
We can therefore be confident that the Public Order Act, even as amended, was never intended to become a blasphemy law.
That obvious conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the controversies regarding blasphemy and Islam in this country began two years after its introduction, in 1988, with the publication of “The Satanic Verses”. Since that year, and the protests and fatwa against Sir Salman Rushdie, our public conversation about Islam has been limited through a mixture of self-censorship and more official restrictions, such as the definition of Islamophobia accepted by many public bodies. These restrictions are motivated not by a desire to avoid offence—consider the criticism and mockery made of other religions—but by fear of a violent response by those who are offended.
Some say public order offences are not the same as a blasphemy law, and that it can be legitimate to prosecute somebody for saying something that might cause wider disorder. Perhaps in some circumstances that may be so, but we should interrogate this line of thinking. First, the Crown Prosecution Service gave the game away by charging one man with causing “distress” to the “religious institution of Islam”, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of blasphemy. Secondly, twisting the law to make a protestor responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others is wrong; it destroys our freedom of speech. Some argue that although this may be regrettable, it is now an unavoidable consequence of the multicultural society in which we live today.
By this logic, the state must police the boundaries between different ethnic and religious groups to avoid disorder, but we should be clear that that means state intrusion and a loss of liberty on some occasions, and mob rule on others. This is the very essence of the two-tier policing row we have seen recently: rough justice for those belonging to identity groups that play by the rules, and freedom from justice for those belonging to groups willing to take to the streets and threaten violence. This is the logic of using the Public Order Act to prohibit us from saying what we like about a religion. A person may be found guilty because of the violent reaction of those offended by their actions.
From Sir Salman Rushdie to the Batley teacher still in hiding with his family, the threat of violence is what lies behind these new blasphemy laws. Perhaps we should not be surprised. There are at least 14 Muslim-majority countries where the penalty for blasphemy or apostacy is death, and we have significant diaspora populations from many of them. With the number of people here who came from those countries growing and the increasing assertiveness of organised political Islam in Britain, this is a problem that seems likely only to get more severe. But the answer is not to surrender to the mob; it is to hold the line, and that is why today I bring forward this Bill.
I said earlier that section 29J of the Public Order Act protects “criticism”, “insult” and even “abuse” of
“religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”.
However, that applies only to part III of the legislation, because part III introduced offences relating to racial hatred, later amended to include religious hatred. Nobody thought sections 4 and 5, which in part I of the Act make it an offence to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” by using
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
would be used to criminalise the expression of opinions about religious belief.
This Bill would therefore extend the scope of section 29J to the whole Public Order Act—thus preventing the use of sections 4 and 5 as a de facto blasphemy law—and would apply section 29J also to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. In so doing, this Bill would restore free speech as it applies to religion in England and Wales. It would stop the police, prosecutors and judges from creating a blasphemy law from legislation that was never passed for that purpose. It would send the strongest powerful message from this place, where political power legitimately and democratically resides, that this country will not tolerate intimidation, violence or censorship, that there will be no special treatment here for Islam, and that there will be no surrender to the thugs who want to impose their beliefs and culture on the rest of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Nick Timothy, John Cooper, Dr Luke Evans, Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Rupert Lowe, Rebecca Paul, Jack Rankin, Sir Alec Shelbrooke, Bradley Thomas, Tom Tugendhat and Sir Gavin Williamson present the Bill.
Nick Timothy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 257).
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 189 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords Message engages Commons financial privilege.
Before Clause 138
Statement and bringing forward of a draft Bill: copyright infringement, AI models, and transparency over inputs
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill.
I fear it is an inevitable aspect of ping-pong that there is a degree of repetitiveness about our proceedings. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), said last week that it reminded him of the film “Groundhog Day”, but that refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition that if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on 2 February and sees its own shadow, it will retreat to its den and winter will go on for six more weeks. Well, I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another six weeks.
Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright. I fear that some of those misconceptions persist. The Guardian carried the following sentence this weekend:
“The AI Bill, which proposes allowing tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered a fifth defeat in the Lords.”
That was repeated by one of the presenters on the “Today” programme, who stated that the Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material. I am glad the “Today” programme has apologised and corrected the record. Let me reiterate: this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever. If the Bill goes forward in the way proposed by the Government, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. Sometimes I want to say, in the words of Richard II, “you have mistook us all this while.”
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I accept what he said at the start of his speech, but the industry is desperate: its intellectual property is being stolen day by day, and the Minister does understand that it wants a timeline and a vehicle. I hope he will confirm that the Government are going to bring one forward.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to do that. He also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for Government because it is not the Government who enforce it. I have the enforcement regulations in my hand. Chapter VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes it very clear that infringement is actionable by copyright owners. In common with many bits of the law and with statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by Government. It is by either the prosecuting authorities or by people taking a civil action. Those are the measures that exist in copyright law today and we are not changing them in a single regard. Having said all that, I acknowledge the strong feelings expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country, including the significant proportion of the creative industries represented by the tech industries, which this week are celebrating London Tech Week.
It must be said that their lordships have been persistent, so much so that they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”, about the 18th century Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi. It uses several musical terms, such as the dominant, and includes the line:
“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”
The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listened to them; we have heard them, and we are answering them. Although the Bill, which was drafted largely by the previous Government, did not originally refer to the matter of copyright at all, that is why at a previous stage we tabled specific requirements on the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months.
In response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. First, we are adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Secondly, in response to the call for us to work faster—meeting the point just made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith)—we will deliver the economic impact assessment and reports within nine months, rather than 12 months. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that the Secretary of State make a progress statement to Parliament about the documents within six months of Royal Assent.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody?
Chris Bryant
In the end, the single most important compromise will be between the AI sector and the creative industries sector. That is the bit that we need to negotiate over the next few months. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the idea of simply putting one part of the jigsaw into this Bill. The truth is that if we are going to get to a proper compromise solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture. That means that we need to go through a proper process.
The last time we discussed these things, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) referred to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments that he thought were tabled to deal with Napster in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Because I had some spare time over the weekend, I read all the debates on that Act in 2010, and we went through a process to get to that Act: we produced a White Paper and then legislation, which went through both Houses. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Mandelson and in the House of Commons by Ben Bradshaw. In fact, most of that Act was so controversial that in the end, it was never implemented by the Government who took over in 2010, and large chunks of the Act were taken out when it collided with the 2010 general election.
I am not sure that things were quite as the hon. Gentleman thought at the time, but the key point is that we need to go through a proper process of bringing forward conciliation in this area. That means introducing legislation once we have considered the responses to the consultation, bringing forward our economic impact assessments, considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industries and the tech companies, and then considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we possibly can, because I want to get to a solution for all of this problem.
The Government have tabled amendments to put these commitments in the Bill. The amendments were initially tabled in the other place, but they were not voted on by peers, who instead insisted on the amendment that we disagreed to last Tuesday—in fact, as I understand it, the amendments were not moved. They show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard the concerns about timing and accountability.
We need to do one other piece of work. The House already knows that we will bring together working groups to consider transparency and technical solutions. They will have AI and creative industry representatives on them and will be extra-parliamentary.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. On that point, will he outline how the Government will decide which parliamentarians will be on the advisory group and how they will be chosen?
Chris Bryant
I am about to come to that—my hon. Friend has a faster timeline than I have. There is of course expertise in Parliament, which is why I commit today that the Government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed on progress on this important issue, so that we can benefit from their input as we develop our thinking before any formal proposals are brought back to Parliament.
The working group meetings will include a cross-party group of Members, made up of MPs and peers. We hope that the group can act as an informal sounding board, but it is not intended to replicate or replace the normal scrutiny role of established bodies, such as Select Committees. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is in her dutiful place as usual; I would not dream of seeking to tell her Committee what to do or how to conduct its business, but we would none the less like to be able to draw on its members and their expertise.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Dame Meg Hillier
Late on Friday night—after hours and to an unmonitored inbox—emails suggesting that approach were sent to the Chairs of the two relevant Select Committees: the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That was the first that had been heard of it. An all-colleague email went round on Saturday morning. This seems to be rather hurried, breathless and not very courteous to the House. The Minister has written two very respected books about Parliament, and I am sure that he did not intend disrespect, but we need to be clear that scrutiny is done through Select Committees and that policymaking is a separate thing. Combining the two is not really appropriate.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. Scrutiny of Government legislation through the proper processes in either this House or the other House—or through Select Committees, for that matter, which do it in a slightly different way—is one thing, and the business of developing policy is another. I completely apologise for the inadvertent sending of the email to the wrong address and all the rest of it.
We are simply trying to engage as many Members in this House and the other House as we possibly can, on a matter that clearly matters to a great number of Members of Parliament because of their constituents. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who I know has a very large creative community in her own constituency. We want to involve as many people as we possibly can. We may be moving faster on occasions than people want, but sometimes the demand is that we move faster. I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy, but we are simply trying to engage as many people in the future debate as we possibly can.
Chris Bryant
Before I do, I will say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wonder if it would be useful if she and I met in the next few days with the Chairs of the two most relevant Committees to discuss precisely what shape all that should take and what would be useful and informative, rather than doing anything that might undermine the process.
Chris Vince
The Minister partly answered my question as he went along there. My thought on the group is that it is really important that we get creative voices into the room to have that conversation. Once the group is formed, will part of its remit be to invite members of the creative industry in to discuss their concerns and how we can work together to solve them?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind him that we have only an hour for the whole debate. We have four Back Benchers wishing to contribute.
Chris Bryant
I feel told off, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you very much. I have been told off for talking too long, for talking too short, for going too fast and for going too slow.
My point is that we are already committed to creating two working groups that will look at transparency and at technical solutions to the problems that we face. Both of them will have members of the creative industries and members of tech and AI companies engaged in them. In addition, we want to have a separate group of Members of this House and the other House who are engaged with and have an interest in the subject to help us to develop these policy areas. I think it is best to keep those separate, and that is the plan. As we know, the Secretary of State has already written to the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, but I hope that what I have just said is helpful.
Chris Bryant
I see that I am getting a slight nod from the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about the prospect of our meeting to sort out a way forward on that.
I will say a few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested that different rules apply because the Bill started in the Lords. That is simply not true. Double insistence would kill the Bill wherever the Bill had started, and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the Bill. It has important measures that will enable digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy; that will save NHS time; that will make vital amendments to our policing laws; and that will support the completion of the EU’s adequacy review. Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses, which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu and urge the Lords not to insist on their amendment but to agree with us.
It is worth pointing out that if their lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill that all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation; they are imperilling something of much greater significance and importance economically: our data adequacy with the European Union. The successful renewal of our EU adequacy decisions is predicated on us having settled law as soon as possible, and we will not have that until the Bill gains Royal Assent. I cannot overemphasise how important this is, and I am absolutely mystified as to why the Liberal Democrats—of all parties—would want to imperil that.
I am equally mystified by the position of the Conservative party. They tabled amendments in the Commons Committee and Report stages that are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the Bill and are adding today. I very much hope therefore that the Conservative party will agree to our motion. It is not as if it disagrees with any of the measures in the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, who said in the Lords,
“I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 755.]
It was a point she reiterated later in the debate when she said,
“if we”
—that is, the Lords—
“choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does… I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 773.]
The noble Baroness is right. In the end, only one House is elected; only one House constitutes the Government of the day; and, especially where a Bill was adumbrated in a general election as this one was, the unelected House treads carefully. That is all the more important when the governing party has barely a fifth of the members of the other House. We have listened to the other House and taken action. There may be disagreements about the measures we have taken, but it would be wrong to say that we have not listened. It is time for the Houses to agree that the Bill must go forward.
I will say one final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional age. When our parents were young, they were lucky if their family had a television or a record player. They might occasionally go to a gig, concert or play. If they did have a television, they had a choice of just two or three channels. By contrast, today we are surrounded by human creativity in a way that no other generation was. Technology has brought us multiple channels where we can pick and choose whatever we want, whenever we want to see it. We watch more drama than ever. We can listen to our own choice of music on the train, on the bus or in the car. We can play games online with friends on the other side of the world. More books are published than ever. We can read or listen to them. Almost twice as many people went to the theatre last year as went to a premier league match. There are many challenges, all of which we need to address, including that of the interaction of AI with human creativity, but creativity is a quintessence of our humanity. It requires human-to-human connection, and I do not think for a single instant that that will change.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It feels like we are going from “Groundhog Day” to “Lost in Translation” because the Government clearly are not getting the message.
Today I will try something different and tell the House a story—the story of this debate:
A story was read in the deep dark wood,
AI saw the book, and the book looked good.
“Where are you heading to, original tome?
Come here with me, and I’ll give you a home.”
“That’s awfully sweet of you, but no,
I’m meeting my author, and they say where I go.
Now I like you, and I don’t want to cause strife
But they made me with love and words shaped by life.
So if we’re to partner, please do ask them first,
To not would be naughty,” he said with lips pursed.
Perhaps I owe Julia Donaldson an apology, while also thanking her for the national treasure that is “The Gruffalo”—I look forward to the third book in the series. We did not use AI, which was useless, to draft it, just the skills of one of my team members Jacqui Gracey—human skill, talent and transparency over sources and work.
Transparency is fundamental to protect creative endeavours. No one can doubt that the Minister has done his best to demonstrate the enduring nature of the creative spirit in the face of adversity and to avoid committing to a timescale and to legislating on transparency. This week, it is a new parliamentary working group. Last week, it was reviews. Next week, it may even be a citizens’ assembly, but the creative industries are not buying it. Our noble colleagues in the other place are not buying it. Members of Opposition parties, and indeed some Members on his own Benches, are not buying it. They are not buying it because the Government have lost the confidence of their stakeholders that they would bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content—AI companies need to buy it.
It is this loss of confidence in the Government’s will to take decisive action that means that nothing short of a commitment to bring forward legislation will be enough to allay the fears of the creative industries.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for his creativity in his speech. The heart of the debate is whether creatives are asked before we steal their material or style, but also that they are remunerated for that. That is a commitment we have heard from the Minister and from the Secretary of State in his media performances on the weekend. This problem predates this year. It dates back to stuff being stolen over a considerable number of years. Why did the last Government not take any initiative to ensure that creatives receive their just rewards for their creativity?
Dr Spencer
What the last Government did not do is release a consultation that had a ministerial foreword to say that the position of copyright was uncertain. What they did not do was say their preferred option was opt-out, which spooked the creative industry and caused all these problems in the first place. It is this Government’s ham-fisted approach that caused so many of the problems that they are now trying and failing to fix. The Government have played a large part in creating this problem.
Pete Wishart
I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. The last Government did not do anything on this issue, basically because they did not understand what was going on, and the little they did understand about some of the threats from AI, they did not care. As he asked the Labour Benches to do yesterday, the hon. Gentleman should apologise for the last Government’s inaction over the past few years because a lot of this is down to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should allow the hon. Member to respond to the first intervention before he takes a second.
Dr Spencer
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, this is clearly a tricky area to legislate—I have said that at the Dispatch Box and in Committee many times—but what is not helping is the uncertainty that has been created throughout the debate, whether it is the position of copyright law, preferred third options or the status of opt-out, which is how we got into this pickle in the first place.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
There seems to be mass amnesia breaking out across the Chamber because the last Government did do something on this: they set up a working group between AI companies and the creative industries.
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
They cancelled it.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
No, the AI companies walked away. We are almost at risk of recreating history by this Government wanting to set up exactly the same working group and thinking that by doing the same thing again, the outcome will somehow be different.
Dr Spencer
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is also trying to break us out of the groundhog day that we seem to have found ourselves in.
The Lords amendment does not fetter the Government’s policy options, nor does it prescribe how proportionate transparency should be achieved. It simply puts a line in the sand for the Government to act on this hugely important issue.
To return to the AI and the Gruffalo,
So on went the story through the deep dark wood
To be loved by its readers, as a good book should.
Yet the AI pondered, as it wanted it now.
“I’ll simply just scrape it”, the AI did avow.
When he was musing, he stumbled across
The author reclining on a patch of green moss.
They had glasses and notebooks and ideas galore.
They had printed five books, but were working on more.
Their eyes came to meet—they were in for a fight.
Both wanted the story, but who was right?
The answer is both, if reasonably sought
For content, not stolen, but licensed or bought.
Be clear what you’re taking, be transparent and true,
And recognise the content and its real value.
Then there’s no monster nor bad guy, just an allegorical rhyme
And a plea to listen and take action in time.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I hope that the shadow Minister sought permission to misappropriate Julia Donaldson’s wonderful work. It is hardly an example that any of us should follow.
We are back here again. I put on record my thanks to Government Front Benchers for their engagement on this issue. It was particularly welcome to see the Secretary of State, in his appearance on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, take such a human approach to recognising the concern that exists in the creative industries and give a commitment to the nation about the seriousness of what comes from this place.
I also welcome the Minister’s comments that the creative and tech sectors will be involved in the next phase of this work, because that is essential. However, I would like to stress two further points. First, that involvement must reflect the breadth of the creative industries, from music and publishing to games, film and beyond—the necessary mix of expertise. That means the creative sector rights holders and business affairs professionals being involved, alongside the tech experts who understand the complexities of data flows, metadata structures, and the practicalities of any opt-out system or tech solution that is to be developed, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s clarification that the Government no longer have a preferred position.
We look forward to the consultation and its findings being open and transparent, because while all the creative sectors share in the value of copyright as a principle that is tech and sector neutral, the way that commercial licensing models develop in practice will differ, and it is not for the Government to second-guess that. That is not a problem; in fact, it is a good thing. The emergence of bespoke commercial partnerships is precisely how the Government can achieve their objective of driving effective licensing, but to get there, we need sector-specific insight and specialist input, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome the commitment to include Back Benchers, stakeholders and leaders of industry.
Crucially, the Government must consult and liaise with all of us on the formation of these groups, including their terms of reference—this cannot be presented again as a fait accompli. Too often, we hear of officials thinking or mulling things over, but not sharing what those thoughts are or what the implications of their latest thought could be. With the best will in the world, they cannot know the business as clearly as industry does. I believe that the prospects for both industries have improved as a result of this ping-pong process and the arguments we have been having, both in this House and in the other place.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend says that the prospects for both industries have improved. I have spoken in this place about my previous role as a screenwriter—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and this week, the British Film Institute reported that AI threatens the British film industry, with over 130,000 scripts having been plundered. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we fail to take this opportunity to deal with transparency and put powers to legislate on the face of the Bill, we will be leaving screenwriters and other creatives high and dry until we legislate in the future?
Mr Frith
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which as ever is rooted in the first-hand experience and professional success that brought her to this place. She should be listened to, and her warnings about the implications of not taking transparency seriously should be heeded.
Secondly, I will return to a subject that I have raised before, because it warrants more scrutiny. That is the recurring suggestion that copyright is out of date. On the one hand, we have heard the Government talk about copyright being clear and well established, and of course we agree with that. Only this weekend, the Government clarified again that if no licence or permission is in place, that is theft or piracy. That clarity is precisely what gives rights holders the confidence, control and legal basis to license their works, which the Government also rightly want to encourage.
However, in the same spirit, we sense that the Government still feel that copyright somehow needs to be reformed or ignored. I ask the Minister to take what I hope is the last opportunity during this process to indicate exactly what reform is being proposed, and what it will achieve that copyright does not already do, because the creative industry believes copyright to be best in class as a respected and enforceable measure. If the answer is transparency, personality rights, or anything that sits around copyright rather than within it, let us call that what it is, but can we please avoid vagueness, constructive ambiguity, and language that sets hares running or undermines confidence in what is frankly a best-in-class system?
Finally, if the Government are still entertaining the idea that the stability of UK copyright law could be weakened in pursuit of an idea of innovation, many will feel that the shift in tone and position in recent weeks —which has been deeply welcome—has been counter-productive, and they will be left concerned.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I would like to either disappoint or reassure the House that, sadly, I do not have a story for Members today. I will dive straight into the amendments that are before us.
Just three months. After all the discussions and the cries for fairness from the creative industries, which have seen the daylight robbery of their life’s work, the Government are sending back an amendment that, in essence, changes the economic assessment from 12 months to nine months, with a progress statement and some expansion. I understand that this is the data Bill, and that this legislation contains many important elements relating to the future of our data, which we must secure. In response to the point made by the Minister, I absolutely understand the importance of securing data adequacy with the European Union. However, the creative industry is at a critical juncture with AI. Many feel that it is already too late, but they are doing what they can, fighting for transparency and fairness for a £126 billion UK industry.
The Creators’ Rights Alliance has already started to see the impact for creators. 58% of members of the Association of Photographers have lost commissioned work to generative AI services, with an increase of 21% in the past five months alone, totalling an average loss of £14,400 per professional photographer—approximately £43 million in total. Some 32% of illustrators report losing work to AI, with an average loss of £9,262 per affected UK creator. There is an uncomfortable truth that economic gains from AI—of which I am sure there will be many—will also be met with economic losses that must be addressed. Indeed, at Old Street tube station, there are signs everywhere at the moment saying “Stop hiring humans.” Some 77% of authors do not know whether their work has been used to train AI, 71% are concerned about AI mimicking their style without consent, and 65% of fiction writers and 57% of non-fiction writers believe that AI will negatively impact their future earnings. At this point, the creative industry feels betrayed, and is asking for solutions.
I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statements this weekend. He talked about looking comprehensively at the challenges creatives will face into the future and about bringing legislation in at the right time, but that time is now. Last week’s Lords amendment 49F highlighted that the Lords understood the need for separate legislation and asked for a draft Bill looking at copyright infringement, AI and transparency about inputs, which is something that creatives have been clear about from the start. I have always highlighted the positive impacts of technology and innovation, and I have no doubt that creatives will also use AI to aid their creativity. However, from musicians to film makers and photographers to writers and painters, the works of this massive industry have been swallowed up, and creatives are left wondering what that means for them—especially as they are already starting to see the impact.
In my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted I see the creative spirit everywhere. There is: Open Door, a caring oasis with walls covered by local artists; the Harpenden Photographic Society, established more than 80 years ago, where generations have learned to capture light and moment through their lens; the Berkhamsted art society, where painters and craftspeople gather to nurture each other’s artistic journey; and the Berkhamsted Jazz group, who get us up and dancing. These creators are the threads that weave the rich tapestry of British culture, and the creative industries permeate our towns, including the filming of box office hits such as “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” at Ashridge. Who will be the guardians of this creative galaxy? Why does this theft feel a little less heroic than Robin Hood?
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my being the founder of Labour: Women in Tech and the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology, and to my career in data and technology prior to becoming an MP. I welcome the Government’s new approach to innovate and expedite the process and to leverage the expertise of both Houses and key stakeholders. I thank them for their work on that.
Just under a month ago, the UK hosted FinTech Week and the global fintech forum, where businesses and Government leaders from around the world came to participate in critical conversations about the importance of the trusted global financial services ecosystem for the physical and digital worlds. Attendance was so senior and strong because after the global financial crisis the UK had to move quickly to a new model, and hence fintech was born. A lot of great work was done in this space by the Conservatives when they were in government, even if they could not get their act together over AI and keep the attention of AI companies. Government regulators, incumbents, entrepreneurs and investors worked together with alacrity to create an ecosystem that led the world into fintech. We created tens of thousands of new jobs, brought in tens of millions in inward investment and created more than 20 billion-dollar companies.
We are in the middle of London Tech Week, which is happening a few miles away at Olympia and was attended by the Prime Minister. There is a technology challenge in the creative industries that needs addressing now, which is why it is great to hear the news today. This is an emergency, and the emergence of AI in recent times has created opportunity and new threats for creatives, who rightly worry that their work is often appropriated by AI without reward or recognition. However, we can be a pioneer in this field, developing trusted solutions that protect creatives and set the standards that others will follow. We have demonstrated our ability to do that in the past with fintech, in which the UK holds a 10% global market share.
The UK’s secret sauce is a unique blend of not just our brilliant talent, light-touch regulation, common business language and soft power, but our common law, which is used by other countries. We are an exemplar. Other countries look to us to lead the way. A crisis is at the door, but we have an opportunity to be on the front foot, ahead of other countries experiencing the same challenges and watching us closely. This country always steps up in times of crisis. The UK can and must take a leading position on the fair use of AI in the creative industries and help to protect our creatives and their work, which are rightly celebrated across the world.
Engagement with global players in the ecosystem is important, but we should also be far more focused on the UK’s home-grown talent and inventive mindset to solve the biggest puzzles. We can move quickly when we need to, and my message to the Secretary of State and to this House is that we really need to, and have to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
First, I thank the Secretary of State for sending our Committee a letter on Friday evening setting out the Government’s intentions for AI and copyright. Reflecting what the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), said, both the nature of the letter and the method with which it was received were almost symbolic of how this whole process has been conducted from beginning to end. It was fairly haphazard and chaotic, and it was not entirely clear what the Secretary of State or the Minister intend to happen next, but I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to have a chat to talk us through it.
Specifically, the Secretary of State and the Minister set out their amendments to the Bill and a plan to set up this parliamentary working group, and we would like to know a lot more about that. I understand exactly what the Government are trying to do: they are trying to placate peers and bring the Data (Use and Access) Bill to a conclusion, as the Minister says. The problem is that they are still not engaging with the fundamental existential issue, which is the concerns expressed by people across the creative industries.
The Government’s amendment would expedite the economic impact assessment of the options in the AI copyright consultation. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee jointly wrote about that in February. Another amendment would expand the scope of the report to include training outside the UK and enforcement, which obviously should have happened from the start. The amendments are all welcome, but they miss the point of the creative industries’ concern that their work and intellectual property are being exploited wholesale, without permission, without payment and without practical means of recourse and redress.
I note that the Minister told the House on 14 May:
“I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 417.]
The Government giving themselves nine months rather than 12 to conclude what we already know—that their favoured consultation option is completely unworkable—is much less likely to deliver quickly the kind of transparency and enforcement for creators than the amendments proposed in the other place.
The Secretary of State’s letter also mentions that the Government intend to set up a parliamentary working group to ensure that
“Parliament has a voice directly into DSIT throughout this process”.
The big fear is that this working group will simply be a channel through which the Government will report back on their own engagement with AI developers and rights holders. The Government instead need to be listening to the concerns of Parliament and industry stakeholders. Maybe then they will realise that this stakeholder engagement exercise between rights holders and AI developers has been tried before, as I said earlier, including in the last Parliament. It was scrutinised at the time by the Committee I chair, and each time things have got nowhere. Talks have collapsed because the status quo suits rogue developers acting in bad faith. They think they have nothing to lose by looting the work and value of our creators and our rights holders.
If the Government press on with this working group, we will of course engage and do what we can to support, but let us call it what it is: a distraction technique to divert attention away from the fact that the Government have got themselves into a terrible pickle over this legislation. They started a consultation on AI and copyright when they already had stated a preferred outcome, and they have been cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month. They have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. They have been gaslighting Members of all parties and at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to the situation. They have been somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost presenting them as luddites who are allergic to innovation and technology, when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there. They are using AI every single day to produce world-beating pieces of creative content. The very nature of how the Government have conducted this legislation pits our creative industries against AI, and that is deeply unfair.
It is all not good enough. This is simply a thinly veiled attempt to kick the can down the road—and if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, the Minister would have to add “sport” to his portfolio. If he thinks that any of us are fooled by this, or that it will quieten those who want to stand up for our world-leading creative industries and against the existential threat that they face, he has another think coming.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have a hard stop at 2.56 pm, and I know that the Minister will wish, with the leave of the House, to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Mr Wishart, you have several minutes, but please do not go all the way to 2.56 pm.
Pete Wishart
I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not detain the House, as I have just a few comments to make. Let me begin by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I had my criticisms of the previous Government, but they did not extend to her. She was someone who understood the issues, and someone who was prepared to try to find a solution. Whereas the previous Government were appalling in the way they dealt with these matters, she at least made every effort, through the work of her Committee, to get to the heart of the debate.
This has been an extraordinary episode, and I cannot believe that we are back here for the fifth time. The issues are usually resolved and dealt with in circumstances such as this, and a meaningful compromise is reached between the Lords and the Commons, but that has failed to materialise during what has been a remarkable session of ping-pong. The whole episode has been as interesting and dynamic as it has been entertaining. The Minister and I were elected at the same time—I think we celebrated our 24th year of continuous membership of the House over the weekend. I am sure he will agree that he has never seen anything quite like the way in which we have reached this stage, but if he can give an example to the contrary, I shall be keen to hear it—I know that, given his almost photographic memory, he would be able to provide the details.
What disturbs me is the Government’s failure to attempt to secure some sort of meaningful compromise. Their inability to do that is quite baffling. I am trying to think of a few ways in which we might get round this. It might be an idea to get the Secretary of State and Elton John in the same room and lock the door: perhaps when the two of them emerged, we might be able to come up with some sort of solution. We are in the realms of trying to find a way forward, and that might be one way in which we could do so.
By refusing to listen to the strong view of the Lords and respect the convention that ping-pong is a process at the end of which a workable compromise generally appears, the Government risk undermining their own legislative process. Having looked at the Lords amendment again, and having listened carefully to the debate the other day, I cannot see anything wrong with an amendment that simply asks for a draft Bill containing provisions
“to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models”.
I thought that was what we were all trying to achieve, and I am surprised at the Government’s intransigent resistance to a fairly modest attempt to find solutions.
I have looked at the Government amendments as well, and I welcome them. As I have said to the Minister, the one that excites me most involves this House, parliamentary resources and the ability to play a meaningful part in these matters. I hope that he will be able to extend that to all parties across the House.
Pete Wishart
I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues.
The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment.
It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success.
The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously.
Chris Bryant
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change.
Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Chi Onwurah
I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will.
Chris Bryant
We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up.
I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind.
We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow.
Question put.
Division 219
Ayes: 304
Labour: 300
Independent: 3
Liberal Democrat: 1
Noes: 189
Conservative: 97
Liberal Democrat: 56
Independent: 9
Scottish National Party: 8
Reform UK: 4
Green Party: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:27 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
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:
New clause 42—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.
(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”
This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.
New clause 85—Compensation payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 30 (amount of home loss payment in England and Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit ‘10 per cent of’;
(ii) omit ‘subject to a maximum of £15,000 and a minimum of £1,500.’
(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).
(3) In section 33A(2) (basic loss payment), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (2) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’.
(4) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)—
(a) in subsection (2), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (3) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’;
(b) omit subsection (3).”
New clause 107—Disposal of land held by public bodies—
“(1) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Power to direct bodies to dispose of land) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In subsection (2), at end insert—
‘(C1) Steps taken in response to a direction under subsection (A1) must—
(a) include a duty to consider disposal of land for the public good, and
(b) provide that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal does not exceed £3,000,000 or 40% of unrestricted market value, whichever is greater.’
(3) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with subsection (7) of section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.’
(6) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.
(7) Subject to subsection (9), a disposal of land under is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (8).
(8) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—
(a) in paragraph 2(a)(iii), leave out ‘and’ and insert, at end—
‘(iv) the development and availability of affordable housing, and’
(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;
(c) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—
‘(xiii) a combined authority;
(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;
(xv) the Greater London Authority;
(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this subparagraph.’
(9) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.”
New clause 114—Development corporations to provide green spaces—
“A development corporation must provide or facilitate the provision of—
(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;
(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
This new clause would ensure development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments.
New clause 127—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
New clause 128—Community benefit scheme for compulsory purchase—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for the purposes of providing members of a local community with certain benefits when a compulsory purchase order has been granted within the relevant area.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require that, where a compulsory purchase has taken place, the equivalent of 20% of the amount for which the compulsory purchase was made must be paid into a community benefit fund;
(b) describe the—
(i) governance of, and
(ii) purposes for which sums may be payable from the fund;
(c) specify the meaning of—
(i) ‘local community’, and
(ii) ‘relevant area’
for the purposes of a scheme established under this section;
(d) specify the circumstances of compulsory purchase to which the scheme should apply; and
(e) specify the proportion of the sum to be payable into the fund by each party to the relevant compulsory purchase.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase. The scheme would require the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made to be paid into a community benefit fund by parties to the compulsory purchase.
Amendment 151, in clause 93, page 122, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after a period of twelve months from the passing of this Act has elapsed, publish a report assessing the impact of this clause on—
(a) the achievement of sustainable development, and
(b) the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must publish a report into the success of development corporations in achieving their duty to have regard for sustainable development and climate change.
Amendment 153, page 145, line 10, leave out clause 104.
Amendment 68, in clause 104, page 145, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”
This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).
Amendment 88, page 145, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.’”
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Amendment 89, line 23, at end insert—
“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.’”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 88 above.
Freddie van Mierlo
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 22. Active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is hugely beneficial for health and happiness, and I know there is wide agreement on that point in this House. I welcome the investments being made by this Government in active travel through increases to the budget for Active Travel England, but even when there is willingness and funding to progress a scheme, it can be hard to get a plan off the ground, because landowners can refuse to co-operate. Compulsory purchase orders are regularly used for road transport projects, but when it comes to active travel, local authorities are reticent.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for responding to my written parliamentary questions on this matter. On 15 May, he informed me:
“The Department for Transport has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of compulsory purchase order powers in progressing active travel schemes”.
That is somewhat surprising given the scope of this Bill, which aims to speed up infrastructure project delivery, but he did reassure me that local authorities can use CPOs for active travel. However, there is a difference between what is theoretically possible and the reality.
In Committee, this issue was raised by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who is a powerful advocate for cycling. We were informed then by the Minister for Housing and Planning that updated guidance was published in October last year, and that it will be updated following the passage of the Bill. I have been through that guidance, and I can tell the House that nothing in it refers to active travel; it is covered only in so far as it falls under the umbrella term “highway”. The problem is that those rules work fine for roads, but are insufficiently adapted for the challenges of an active travel project. Furthermore, this guidance is non-statutory and is an interpretation of current law.
The Minister also signposted me to upcoming guidance from Active Travel England. This will support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes, but it does not include consideration of CPOs. Again and again when the Minister states that there is already guidance, we see that it is insufficient and does not cover CPOs.
It is welcome news that, in response to another of my written questions, the Government have shared that future Active Travel England guidance will include case studies of the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. However, this is not enough. Active Travel England does good work, but it is not the Government and will never carry the same weight as statutory guidance. That is why new clause 22, which specifically requires such guidance to be published by Ministers, should be part of the Bill. All other options have been exhausted.
Before going further, let me make it clear that I do not believe that CPOs should be wielded lightly. It is far better to have a constructive relationships with landowners. CPOs should be a last resort, but without the threat of one in the back pocket, we are sending local authorities into negotiations with both hands tied behind their backs.
My county of Oxfordshire is hugely ambitious in its desire to reduce car journeys and roll out a county-wide strategic active travel network linking towns and villages together. In my own corner of the county, there is a clear case for the Thame to Haddenham greenway, which would link the town of Thame with the train station in Haddenham, and allow villagers in Haddenham to get safely to Thame and enjoy the town. There is widespread cross-party support for it, and I am pleased that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are working closely together to progress the project. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), another of my constituency neighbours, for his support.
When I was a councillor, residents of the beautiful small town of Watlington told me just how valuable a cycleway between Watlington and the village of Lewknor would be. Lewknor sits just off junction 6 of the M40, and it enjoys good bus connections to London and Oxford through the Oxford tube and airport buses. An informal park and ride works well enough, but would it not be so much better if there was a cycle route covering those 2.5 miles? Yet I learned early on that the landowner has no intention of co-operating, even though an old railway would be a perfect route, and the project was stopped dead in its tracks.
It may surprise Members that the issue this new clause seeks to address has already been considered closely by our colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the Welsh Assembly, as it was still called, looked in detail at the issue. The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee made some observations within the context of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 that I think are relevant to building the case for better guidance. The committee was cross-party and chaired by an AM for the Welsh Conservatives. It received evidence from Sustrans that:
“without effective support to ensure that land is made available, key sections of route which could make everyday journeys viable could take years to be delivered, or not be delivered at all.”
Sustrans suggested that the CPO process is a block on active travel routes, as objections to CPOs may be made on the grounds that there is one or more alternative—albeit lower-grade—route options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to challenge. As a result, local authorities are discouraged from beginning a lengthy and costly CPO process. The committee received further evidence from Sustrans that:
“Greater guidance and support is needed for local authorities”.
It concluded with a recommendation that the Welsh Government should work with local authorities and other stakeholders to find ways to “unblock” the process of using CPOs to develop cycle routes.
Perhaps recognising this problem, in response to another written question, the Minister yesterday pointed me in the direction of public path construction under the Highways Act 1980 for the creation of active travel routes. Although I am grateful for his response, it raises more questions than answers, and I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I will be submitting those questions through MemberHub. I have previously worked with local groups who wanted to get rights of way registered, and it is simply not possible for the highway authority to create public paths where none already exist. The application process requires statements from multiple people showing continuous use over at least 20 years, which does not work for a route that already cannot be used due to private ownership.
Before I wrap up, let me give another shout-out to the work of the Welsh Government, who have recognised that funding for active travel can be hard to find and is often assembled piecemeal. This gives rise to a chicken-and-egg situation: why seek a CPO if there is no funding, and why get funding if there is no viable route assembled? In Wales, guidance therefore requires a compelling public interest in acquisition, but not immediate financial readiness; in contrast, in England, guidance emphasises the importance of demonstrating financial readiness. Will the Minister therefore consider following in Wales’s footsteps? I ask the Government not to dismiss my concerns around the inadequacy of the current guidance or the good work of their colleagues in Wales. A Government serious about active travel would engage with these issues, as I am sure this Government will want to do following this debate.
Finally, I will spend a few moments on other new clauses and amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Bill removes hope value to improve the use of CPOs for some projects, but there are further projects that would benefit from a similar policy. Amendments 88 and 89 would ensure that hope value is not added to the cost of recreational facilities such as playing fields when an authority purchases the land with the intention of keeping it as a playing field. Removing hope value is particularly important in an area like Oxfordshire, where any whiff of development massively increases costs. In fact, it is one reason that so many small and medium-sized farms will be caught by the Government’s changes to agricultural property relief. If this House accepts the principle of disregarding hope value, that should also apply to the value of land for the purposes of inheritance tax for farms that remain farms.
I also support new clause 107, which would create a duty for any public body to consider the public good when selling land or property. I am aware of local organisations and good causes in my constituency that are looking for space to support their activities where land is disposed of by local authorities. It is right that local organisations benefit when public bodies sell land or properties, such as the men’s sheds movement, which seeks to improve mental health by offering practical hobbies in a space where people can meet and share skills.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to these new clauses and amendments. I humbly ask Members across the House to support new clause 22.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is fantastic to speak in the Chamber on a subject that has been part of my career for the better part of 20 years. I started working in the construction sector as a civil engineer and finished my time working on major programmes around the world.
Planning, and particularly planning in respect of national programmes and major infrastructure, has been a headache for me for a long time. The prolonged wasteful consultation that happens on major programmes, which stops the urgency and prevents an outcome-focused approach to delivering the major infrastructure that we need, is almost like death by a thousand cuts for a lot of communities. It is death by consultation and fatigue; it means that people do not engage in the process, and it drives a culture of nimbyism rather than a culture of wanting to deliver the homes and schools—the civil and social infrastructure—that we desperately need, and that everyone across this House calls out for in their constituencies.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). He was very generous in congratulating many Members on their amendments and very constructive when he outlined his position on this piece of legislation.
I know that Members across the Chamber will be devastated to hear that this will be my last contribution on the Bill before the shadow Secretary of State makes his Third Reading speech. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I know! I wish to thank the Minister for his hard work, all the Members who contributed to our discussions, and the Clerks and the staff who gave us such amazing support throughout what I thought was a long, challenging and often frustrating Bill Committee. As a Committee, we all lived through the emotional journey of whether Charlton—a team that the Minister passionately supports—would be promoted. As I said to him during the Committee, he is welcome down to the Den for Charlton’s next match against Millwall. I will even let him sit on our side of the stadium.
As I have said, I wish to thank all members of the Bill Committee for their contributions. I also congratulate those, such as the hon. Member for Northampton South, who have tabled amendments to the Bill—we have had a weird, wonderful and varied number of new clauses and amendments. As the hon. Member said, finding them to be in scope of the legislation was quite challenging at times, but I trusted the Clerks to make the right decision and therefore most of them stood.
I look forward to briefly outlining the position of the Opposition on some of the new clauses and amendments before the House this afternoon. Only a small part of the Bill will be discussed this afternoon. The majority of mainstream clauses that we are opposed to were in the frustrating and rather emotive session last night. I look forward to challenging the Minister, who might, I think, look slightly less grumpy than he did last night, and to pleading with him to accept some of our amendments. Then again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be dreaming in that regard.
It is clear that the Minister and the Government have a driving mission in this legislation. The Opposition recognise that, but he knows that we have many disagreements on how to achieve the ambitions he has outlined. We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill—through the Bill Committee, Second Reading, Report and, later this afternoon, Third Reading— that we have many core, fundamental and principled disagreements with some of the measures the Minister has proposed. Although we agree that we need to build more houses, that we need to see an infrastructure-first approach and that we need to unlock some development, we have a fundamental disagreement with the centralising zeal of both the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to get us to where they want us to go. We also believe that the Minister could have looked more favourably on some of the new clauses and amendments that were tabled not just by my party, but by other parties in the House and by some of his own Back Benchers, who have proposed well-intentioned and well-meaning measures.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Like others, I sat in the Chamber yesterday listening to the Government voting down so many amendments. We had an opportunity to do something really good with this Bill, and we have missed it. Does the shadow Minister agree that, if we are not careful, we will end up with a piece of legislation that will drive a coach and horses through our communities and our green belt and that does nothing for nature, for farmers, for communities and for the very people who want those things?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place.
The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that Governments of all stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the Chamber who put them forward. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to take the opportunity to think again on some of the amendments if the Bill is delayed in the other place? All of us want to see more houses built, but in a way that works with communities. As my hon. Friend said, there is an opportunity here to do something historic, so let us make sure that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—if that is what is required—the Government listen and act.
Paul Holmes
I have put it on the record, both here and in the Public Bill Committee, that I think this is a principled Minister who knows his stuff. Therefore, he should not be afraid to open his arms and embrace collective responsibility across the House to make sure that this legislation is better, and that it serves everybody in this country. He needs to make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. I say very strongly, as I did yesterday, that the key things that he wants to achieve, such as these housing numbers, will not be achieved through this legislation. He still has the opportunity to work with Members of all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Emeritus Professor Sarah Nield, the chairman of the New Forest Association, writes:
“The current planning and environmental frameworks have played a crucial role in protecting the New Forest’s special qualities. However, the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, particularly those aimed at streamlining planning approvals, accelerating infrastructure projects and weakening environmental safeguards, would seriously undermine those protections.”
This is not a political statement; it is a statement of concern for our most delicate and valuable rural areas.
Paul Holmes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The expert he quotes is from Hampshire, so as a Hampshire MP I am bound to say that she is spot on. My right hon. Friend is spot on too.
Many Members made contributions yesterday in which they raised concern about the Minister’s response to some of the environmental concerns that were raised, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), but also by the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Back Benchers. There are concerns that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation. The Minister seemed, quite frankly, to not take those seriously. The quote my right hon. Friend read out is a very good example of why there are many people who are experts through their professions and who day to day live their ambitions to ensure that the environment is improved.
I note that the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), has said, “When did you start caring about the environment?”. [Interruption.] She can intervene on me if she wants to, or if she wants to contribute to the debate she might want to bob.
As I said, Members across the House have made very well-intentioned appeals to the Minister. I hope that between now and when he winds up he will open up his arms and ensure that he looks seriously at the amendments, not just from my party but from all parties, that seek to strengthen this legislation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said. So many of our constituents, particularly those in the farming community, are already feeling totally let down by this Government, and they feel that this is a further steamroller on their assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might want to show our farming community, who they are already putting under immense pressure, that they are on their side on some of these issues, and probably for the first time in a very long time? So much has already been done to this community—and it does feel like things are being done to them rather than that they are being listened to as part of any process?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pleaded with the Minister at the beginning of my remarks to meet the concerns of not only Conservative Members or the Green party or Liberal Democrats but key people who have communicated through consultations on this legislation that this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.
New clause 85, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), would deliver a fairer, more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase. The current framework under the Land Compensation Act 1973 sets arbitrary caps and percentages on home loss and occupier’s loss payments, which often fail to reflect the true value of what is being lost. By aligning compensation more closely with the full market value of a person’s interest in their property, the new clause acknowledges the deep emotional, financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. It would ensure that those displaced by development were not left worse off or unfairly penalised. In doing so, it would uphold the principle that the burden of public interest projects should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners, helping to maintain trust and fairness in the planning system. The Minister could easily get behind that, as could other parties. Given some of the real challenges we have talked about that CPOs bring to people, the Minister should be slightly more open to amendments to the Bill that would make their lives easier.
I turn briefly to new clause 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which would align compensation payments more fairly and transparently for occupiers affected by compulsory purchase by amending the Land Compensation Act 1973. It would increase occupier’s loss payments for agricultural and other land from 2.5% to 7.5%, bringing them more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally, it would remove arbitrary caps and fixed percentages on home loss payments and instead base compensation on the full market value of the interest in the dwelling. The change would ensure that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase would receive equitable and just compensation reflecting the true value of their property and losses. By modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that the new clause would support fairness for land-owners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process more balanced and respectful of individual rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly mentioned in his intervention.
I turn briefly to other new clauses. New clause 114, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require development corporations to provide or facilitate the provision of green spaces in their developments, including a variety of green areas such as
“private gardens, balconies, and community gardens”.
Furthermore, it would impose a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of such green spaces. I hope that the hon. Member realises that I am doing him a favour by reading out his new clause.
The Opposition recognise the well-intentioned motivation behind the new clause, but I gently say to the Lib Dem spokesman, who yesterday rightly—this is no criticism—made a big play about the role of local authorities, elected councillors and local plans, that we believe that this area should be dealt with purely by our local government colleagues, councillors and planning committees. We should continue to give them the power to serve and react to our constituents’ wishes. We are keen that local authorities such as mine in Fareham and Eastleigh as well as those across the whole of the country have the power to do that for the people they serve. That was a key disagreement between us and the Government—the Liberal Democrats agreed with us—on that provision in the legislation. The Opposition believe that new clause 114 is not required in the legislation because local authorities can provide for that themselves.
I turn briefly to new clause 22 tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). Although it is a well-intentioned new clause to promote active travel infrastructure, it risks weakening the careful balance that compulsory purchase powers must maintain between public benefit and individual property rights. By pre-emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and lowering the evidential threshold for route justification, the new clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase orders without sufficient scrutiny or community consent, which raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency, particularly in cases where landowners could lose property without rigorous demonstration that the chosen route was necessary and the best option available. Given the Conservatives’ long-held position on CPOs and the overreaching powers that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to award themselves in terms of CPOs, we do not think it would be right to give those same powers to local authorities or some of the new authorities outlined in the legislation.
Freddie van Mierlo
Is the shadow Minister in favour of using CPOs for road projects? The new clause would simply equalise the opportunity to use CPOs to deliver active travel with their use for road projects.
Paul Holmes
I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the shadow Minister explain why the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created vast new powers for development corporations, if he believes that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities?
Paul Holmes
I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.
We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better.
Paul Holmes
I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it.
Paul Holmes
I will give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) first because he is a sparring partner from the Public Bill Committee—I hope he does not have another quote—and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Luke Murphy
Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,
“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.
Paul Holmes
I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the entertainment he provided throughout the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and for his generosity in the Tea Room. Talking about reflection, however, would he agree that when one looks in the mirror, one does not always like what one sees? The Minister has reflected on many of the proposals that were brought forward in Committee and he has clearly decided that those things would be better left in the national planning policy framework, as opposed to being in this legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that we do not have more young people buying and owning their own homes now than we did in 2010, and that the reason for that is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this.
Paul Holmes
I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—
Paul Holmes
I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.
What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.
If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.
As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.
I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects.
Paul Holmes
I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.
We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.
Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.
As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.
David Smith
All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.
On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will keep reiterating the point: we are not going to relitigate yesterday’s debate, and we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled on compulsory purchase orders, development corporations and extraterritorial environmental concerns. The hon. Gentleman might like to think of a way to weave those topics into his remarks, rather than rehashing either yesterday’s debate or a Second Reading speech.
David Smith
I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment.
I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the value that development corporations have brought to new towns such as Harlow? New towns are a great example of where we can have affordable housing but also the environmental aspect, with green fingers and green wedges.
David Smith
Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment.
Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.
I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.
On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.
Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.
I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.
However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.
On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.
As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that
“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.
Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that?
Gideon Amos
The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.
We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.
I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.
The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.
These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Once more unto the breach. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 68 in my name, and I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the Government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis, and that is what even stronger reform of CPOs would deliver.
We have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago, yet over that time, house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878%. The Minister for Housing and Planning was right to argue that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. There have been 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households in England since 2015, so the Deputy Prime Minister was right to argue that there is plenty of housing already, but not enough for the people who desperately need it. The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the developer-led model, which Shelter estimates is on track to deliver just 5,190 social rented homes per year, despite those being the very properties that we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation.
The housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from reliance on the vested interests of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended to ensure just that. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, which amounts to more than 60% of the UK’s net worth. The amendment would build on Government proposals to give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so would do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers’ money into wealthy landowners’ pockets. That would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation’s housing crisis.
If we coupled strengthened compulsory purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but achieve genuinely sustainable development, and would no longer be beholden to whatever ill-suited proposals developers chose to bring forward.
The failings of our developer-led planning system are writ large across my constituency. In the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion of housing supply—3,973 and 7,948 net additional dwellings respectively. What happened to local authority housing waiting lists over the same period? They rose from 1,612 to 2,449 in North Hertfordshire and from 2,005 to 2,201 in East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough new homes in my area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered by a profit-driven model. A further fact stands out: over that decade, during which housing supply and waiting lists grew simultaneously in North and East Hertfordshire, not a single council house was built in either authority.
It is time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the Government to look closely at the amendment, and to push onwards to create a planning system that once again puts people before profit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I will speak to the amendments relating to compulsory purchase powers, and to my new clause 128. I note that much of the Bill and most of the clauses will not affect Scotland, but, unusually for a planning Bill, there are components that do affect it.
Before I talk about the detail of my concerns about compulsory purchase powers, I want to set out a little of the context, and say why the issue is exercising so many of my constituents. I am privileged to represent the Scottish Borders—the place I call home. It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, but it is under attack. The net-zero-at-all-costs agenda of this UK Labour Government, backed by the SNP in Edinburgh, is causing huge concern to my constituents. Massive pylons, solar farms, wind farms and battery storage units are ruining the Scottish Borders as we know them, and compulsory purchase powers are a key part of delivering many of those projects.
Wendy Morton
When it comes to infrastructure, such as battery energy storage systems, it is not just the Scottish Borders that are affected, but areas like mine, Aldridge-Brownhills in the west midlands. I support what my hon. Friend says about this feeling like encroachment, and about increasing compulsory purchase powers. Where will it end?
John Lamont
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Ultimately, this is about choices. The choice that this Government and the Scottish Government are making is whether we protect our natural environment, and the rural communities that have sustained food production for many years, or turn them into an industrial wasteland. The compulsory purchase powers in the Bill that affect my constituency in Scotland will affect many similar communities in England.
My constituents in the Scottish Borders have had their fair share of new developments. In the Scottish Borders, the countryside is where we live. It is not some distant, remote area that is occasionally visited by tourists from Edinburgh or London; it is the place we call home. Compulsory purchase powers must be exercised with appropriate checks and balances in order to protect our communities, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the UK.
I now turn specifically to the amendment that stands in my name, new clause 128, which deals with compulsory purchase and the community benefit related to it. We all know that when compulsory purchase takes place, it is difficult and often devastating for those who are directly affected. Too often, though, we fail to recognise the impact on the wider community, especially when it comes to new energy infrastructure. We have to improve the relationship between those affected and those acquiring the land. Compulsory purchase can be a complex and intimidating process.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.
As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land.
Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country.
We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it.
The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body.
Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis:
“Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.]
I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.
Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government
“are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.”
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome.
The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development.
It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely.
Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.
I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time.
New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.
This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer.
I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year.
The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a
“huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.”
I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised.
I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Robbie Moore
I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name.
Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders.
Wendy Morton
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with Natural England. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that we have a Government who say they want to reduce the number of quangos, but who have reduced it by one and introduced 27? In this Bill, they are giving more powers to an unelected quango, which risks doing further untold damage to our green fields, our open spaces and our farmland.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.
The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.
That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.
Robbie Moore
But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.
Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need?
Robbie Moore
Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.
I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like?
Robbie Moore
The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year.
That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am happy to speak today in support of amendment 151, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Our planning system needs reform, but the approach the Government are taking in the Bill is sadly all wrong and desperately needs to be amended.
Amendment 151 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern with the current house building regime, which is good design. I am pleased that in drafting clause 93, the Government have recognised that good design goes hand in hand with sustainable development, but we need to see evidence that the houses we are getting are actually being designed and built better if we are to be confident that we are not just getting more of the same from the big developers.
No one has ever told me that they want more energy-inefficient chocolate box homes, buried deep in rabbit warren estates and built to maximise developer profit. What we see too often in North Norfolk is homes that people do not like and cannot afford, but which they must queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that developers had put covenants on an entire estate to ban branded vehicles from parking on private driveways—they might as well have marketed those homes as for rich second home owners only. That is not how we want to design our communities of the future.
The Government are already taking steps towards good design by accepting the provisions of the sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which mandates solar panels on new builds. It can sometimes seem that politicians ignore good ideas if they come from Opposition parties, so I am particularly pleased that the Government have come to share the Liberal Democrats’ view that having solar panels on new builds is just common sense.
It is not just about the homes themselves; good design is also about how and where we build new houses. People are growing tired, rightly, of estates that are designed around car use, rather than putting public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme design to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, access to public transport rather than car parks, and routes that take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefits right across society: in reduced pressure on health services, in better natural environments and in more cohesive, resilient communities.
Good design will also support the second key aim that amendment 151 seeks to have the Government report on, which is tackling the climate emergency. It is simple: a development that means fewer fossil fuel-powered cars are required to be on the roads will be better for the planet than one that does not.
I do not think that people in North Norfolk are unreasonable in asking for developments to be affordable to buy or rent and sustainable and low cost to heat and power, and to feel connected to communities and not a burden on them. My constituents want to end the housing crisis, but they do not want it done through unaccountable, top-down targets. They want a design-led approach to planning and infrastructure development. I hope the Government hear our proposals to achieve that and support them today.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, we have seen the consequences of house building without the infrastructure to match. This Bill is such a missed opportunity: the Government are repeating the same top-down, developer-led approach that has already failed, sidelining communities, undermining local plans and cutting local councillors out of key decisions. That is why I rise today to speak in support of some amendments.
The current system often sees vital infrastructure lagging or not being delivered for years after houses have been occupied because the delivery of infrastructure is left to developers that submit viability studies and variations of conditions. We need a planning system that puts people and places first, and that includes high-quality active travel infrastructure.
We are lucky in Stratford-on-Avon to have the much cherished Greenway, a traffic-free five-mile cycle path and bridleway, but we also need cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in high-volume streets in our towns so that children and young people can travel to school safely and families can access services, while reducing car journeys and keeping people fit and healthy.
In the rural areas of my constituency, the Two Shires Greenway group is campaigning for an ambitious cycling route along a disused railway. These will link villages to the towns of Stratford and Alcester in my constituency and then further afield to Evesham. But beyond the feasibility studies, the fragmentation of land ownership is an issue. That is why I support new clause 22, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), which strengthens powers to compulsorily purchase land for active travel routes.
Richard Foord
That sounds similar to the Otter Trail in my patch, which would link Feniton to King’s School at Ottery St Mary. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new active travel paths will enable young people to get to school safely?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making a principled speech. Can she explain to the House why she does not think the current local plan regime is adequate to ensure that we have sustainable travel routes? Bringing CPOs into such areas would be regressive to people’s rights and responsibilities.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.
Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.
Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.
I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?
I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.
New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.
We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.
Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.
As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.
On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.
The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.
To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high.
Chris Hinchliff
In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?
Matthew Pennycook
The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.
That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.
However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.
I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.
The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Could the Serjeant at Arms investigate the cause for delay in the No Lobby?
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress; I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.
This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.
As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.
Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.
Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.
We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.
Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.
Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.
When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for all his hard work? He is an incredibly decent and polite man. He may be misguided at times, but we cannot agree on everything. I thank him and his team for all their work, and I thank my shadow ministerial team who did a fantastic job of subjecting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, the other Front-Bench teams, the Committee and the Clerks. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions.
We are told that this Bill is about accelerating house building, unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in England alone in this Parliament. On the face of it, those aims are worthy, but what price are we prepared to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition? Make no mistake: what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is.
This is not an attack on new homes—I am unashamedly pro-business and pro-development. Unlike the Secretary of State, the Minister and half the Cabinet, I have never objected to a housing development in my constituency. Let me be clear: we need homes. We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers and for the next generation, but we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. Instead, we are being offered a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central diktat. The result is soulless settlements, identikit developments and rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are built in.
Crucially, in the Government’s “centralising zeal”—as the excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), calls it—local voices are being sidelined. Local councillors, and those who live in, love and understand their communities best, are being cut out of the process, with their role reduced and their judgment overlooked. The individual has been subordinated to being a cog in the machine. The Bill in its current form is not just flawed, but dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and the governed.
The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national planning policy framework. The Government’s approach of shifting housing targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate. While I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle, raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed. Their grey belt policy—presented as a few disused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts—is a con. What they have actually done is remove important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns.
Of course, there is also the matter of the environment. Anyone who cares about our natural world knows that once a habitat is destroyed, a woodland torn up or a biodiverse landscape bulldozed, no cheque can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensue through the environmental delivery plans. That is why we propose that they be delivered locally through local or strategic plans.
The truth is that we cannot concrete our way to community, we cannot meet our housing needs by overriding the very people we are building for, and we cannot call it progress if the Bill leaves our countryside degraded and our communities disempowered.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Residents in Bexley village in my constituency—it is one of London’s outer villages—are particularly concerned about the erosion of their green areas around the village. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that, when the outer London green belt issue was discussed in the London Assembly last week, Reform backed Mayor Khan in building over the green belt? Reform backed Khan against the interests of Bexley residents.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not a surprise is that Reform would take the further step of supporting the London Mayor in the pursuit of Labour votes.
We have grave concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers for councils, mayors and even Natural England, without hope value or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of our economy: property rights. Not only is this unfair, but it will face legal challenge after legal challenge in the courts.
During the passage of the Bill, we attempted to work with the Government to make sensible changes to make it fit for purpose, but to no avail. Let us not be seduced by false choices. We do not have to choose between development and democracy, between homes and heritage, or between ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build, but we must do so in a way that listens, respects and safeguards.
I urge the Government, yes, to be ambitious, but also to think again. They should rethink the Bill, and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart a path to progress that honours our need for homes, our obligation to communities and to the environment, and our duty to future generations. In its current form, we cannot support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the pleasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in Committee and at all stages of the Bill. I thank my staff team for their work and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their spirited amendments across all topics; in fact, we put forward 78 amendments in Committee, which I can only imagine was an absolute joy for the Minister and his officials to respond to.
I pay tribute to Members across the House for their work on this Bill. It has stimulated amendments from all corners of the House, as well as great debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) working with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on their amendment on rural housing exception sites, to give just one example of the cross-party approach from different corners of the House towards improving the Bill.
On Second Reading, where the Liberal Democrats were the only party—except Plaid Cymru—to vote against the Bill because of our principled concerns about it, we set out to address our concerns about people’s rights, communities and fairness, and the effects the Bill will have on nature. We sought to address all those topics with our amendments.
First, on rights for people and individuals, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), pointed out yesterday, what greater right could there be than the right to a decent, affordable home to bring up one’s family? We championed our proposal for 150,000 social homes a year to be built as a key target for this Government, and continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place, to move towards a target for building social homes, rather than simply a target for building millions of homes; without that, the target will be led by private market housing, which, on its own, is no solution to the problems we face.
We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that the Government will grant themselves, and all future Governments, to interfere in the running of councils and to give decisions to employees and planning consultants over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them, and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions. For the first time, decisions could be made by council officers and consultants, and, though every single elected councillor of that authority may disagree, those decisions will stand in their name, and councillors will not have the power to do anything to change them. That cannot be right.
It will undermine communities’ trust in politics and our planning system—a system in which people engage more at a local level than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more people see the centralisation of planning powers, the standard method and guidance written by Whitehall, the appeals process dominated by Whitehall, and now even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will damage communities’ trust in politics and their belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy, which is so important to our country. That is the principal reason that we object so strongly to the removal of powers from councillors in the Bill.
We support a number of the measures in the Bill; there are many good measures. In passing, I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning, on which he has worked for a number of years. However, we are gravely concerned about its effect on nature. The National Trust has called the Bill a “licence to kill nature”. It is right, of course, to bring in a system for phosphates, for instance, which could be mitigated at a strategic level through environmental delivery plans, but it is wrong to completely remove from that process the principle of “first do no harm” on the site on which we are developing. We should enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in this new system in the Bill, so that, first, we seek to avoid harm to the site, then to mitigate it and, finally, to offset it, but only where that is absolutely necessary. Our new clause 1 would have put that protection of nature into this new system.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am sure my hon. Friend knows his legislation very well, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 stated that Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes such as national landscapes. Does he think that we have missed an opportunity in this Bill by not giving national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like, for instance, Chichester harbour in my constituency?
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has done so much work to champion national landscapes and the need for them to have a seat at the planning table. In my own national landscape, the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills of Somerset also deserve a seat at the planning table. We do not believe that cutting out consultees, consultation and voices such as Sport England from the planning process is the way to deliver more homes or better communities. We need to bring in voices such as those who support our national landscapes, and we would dearly like to put forward amendments to achieve that.
On the rights of people to genuinely affordable homes, the rights of communities to fairness in the process, and rights to nature, we do not believe that the Government have gone far enough and we cannot support the Bill as it stands.
Wendy Morton
Fear not, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my comments very, very brief. I cannot let this Planning and Infrastructure Bill go without saying that it was an opportunity to create the homes that we need, to support our communities, to support our farmers and farming, to support the environment, and to ensure that good development is supported by good infrastructure. I have sat in this Chamber for two days listening to amendments and debating amendments, including my own on battery energy storage systems. Time and again, the Government have just rejected them. What we have ended up with is legislation that drives a coach and horses through accountability. It seeks to steamroll over local people and to concrete over our precious green belt. It gives local people no rights, no voice and no say over how their communities are shaped for the future. On that basis, I will be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
Richard Foord
I, too, will keep my remarks brief, but I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.
Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.
Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The two-state solution is in peril. There is catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a shocking deterioration in the west bank. This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians, but it is also against the interests of Israelis; against their long-term security and their democracy. Today I will update the House on new actions we are taking to uphold human rights and defend the vision and viability of two states living side by side in peace.
In 2024 we saw the worst settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank in the last two decades, and 2025 is on track to be just as violent. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven illegal settler outposts were established annually. In 2024, settlers erected 59. These outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law. Two weeks ago, the Israeli Government themselves announced 22 new settlements in the west bank. Every outpost and every building the settlers erect is a flagrant breach of international law and disregards the views of Israel’s international partners. There are now in excess of 500,000 settlers living in the west bank and over 100,000 in East Jerusalem, the territory that must form the heart of a sovereign, viable and free Palestine.
The sharp growth in settlements alone is dangerous enough, but it has been accompanied by a steep rise in settler violence and extremist rhetoric. Itamar Ben-Gvir has led seven provocative intrusions into Haram al-Sharif since 2022. In 2023, settlers rampaged through the village of Huwara, in what Israel’s own west bank military commander described as a “pogrom done by outlaws”. Last month, the villagers of Mughayyir al-Deir fled their homes in fear after the construction of an illegal outpost 100 metres away. This month, settlers attacked the town of Deir Dibwan. They set fire to houses and injured residents. This violence and rhetoric are deeply concerning. They are an assault not just on Palestinian communities but on the very fundamentals of a two-state solution. This is an attempt to entrench a one-state reality where there are no equal rights.
The two-state solution remains the only viable framework for a just and lasting peace—and I know that it is supported on every side of this House—with Israelis living in secure borders, recognised and at peace with their neighbours, and free from the threat of terrorism; and with Palestinians living in their own state, with dignity and security, free of occupation.
We are steadfastly committed to defending that vision, not just with words but with action. That is why we have pledged £101 million in additional support to the Palestinian people this year, and why we are working to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority. It is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary signed a landmark agreement with Prime Minister Mustafa, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed him to Downing Street. It is why we are clear that Hamas must release the hostages immediately and unconditionally, and that Hamas can have no role in Palestinian governance. It is also why we are committed to working with civil society, Israeli and Palestinian, to support those who believe in peace and coexistence. However, the gravity of the situation demands further action.
The reality is that these human rights abuses, the incitement to violence and the extremist rhetoric come not just from an uncontrolled fringe but from individuals who are Ministers in this Israeli Government. We must hold them to account and protect the viability of the two-state solution. So today we are sanctioning Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. We are acting alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, which have also announced their own measures today.
These two men are responsible for inciting settler violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank—violence that has led to the death of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole towns and villages. That violence constitutes an abuse of Palestinians’ human rights. It is cruel, it is degrading, and it is completely unacceptable. We have told the Israeli Government repeatedly that we would take tougher action if this did not stop. It still did not stop: the appalling rhetoric has continued unchecked; and violent perpetrators continue to act with impunity and encouragement.
Let me tell the House that when we say something, we mean it. Today we and our partners have shown extremists that we will not sit by while they wreck the prospects of future peace.
Our actions today do not diminish our support for the security of Israel and the Israeli people. The agendas of those two men are not even supported by the majority of Israelis, who recognise that those individuals are not working in their interest. As the Foreign Secretary said to this House last month, we want a strong friendship with Israel based on shared values and our many close ties. Our condemnation of Hamas—a proscribed organisation —and of the appalling attacks of 7 October is unequivocal. Our commitment to the security of Israelis and the future of Israel is unwavering. We will continue to press for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for the release of the hostages still held so cruelly by Hamas, and for a ramping up of aid to those Gazans in desperate need. The repeated threats by Hamas to the lives of the hostages are grotesque and prolong the agony of their families and loved ones. Hamas should release all the hostages immediately and unconditionally.
The situation in the west bank cannot be seen in isolation from events in Gaza. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians, the denial of essential aid, and the creation of new Israeli settlements in the strip, is equally appalling and dangerous. This Government will never accept the unlawful transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. As Israel’s ground and air operations expand, Gazans have now been pushed into less than 20% of the territory. Hospitals have been damaged and destroyed. The entire population of Gaza is now at risk of famine.
Meanwhile, Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid endanger civilians and foster desperation. They are inhumane. The Red Cross field hospital in Rafah reported last week that it has responded to an unprecedented five mass-casualty incidents in the two weeks prior. In each case, Palestinians have been killed or injured trying to access aid in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury simply to feed themselves and their families.
We need further action from the Israeli Government now to lift all restrictions on aid, to enable the UN and aid partners to do their work, and to ensure that food and other critical supplies can reach people safely wherever they are. We will continue to support the UN and other trusted non-governmental organisations as the most effective and principled partners for aid delivery. Our support has meant that over 465,000 people have received essential healthcare, 640,000 have received food, and 275,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services.
We of course support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. We welcome the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia to chair an international conference next week to advance a two-state solution. A two-state solution is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve, but it cannot remain an empty slogan repeated by generations of diplomats and politicians while increasingly divorced from the reality on the ground. Mr Smotrich has said there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. Mr Ben-Gvir has spoken of his rights in the west bank—a territory that his Government are occupying—as being more important than the rights of millions of Palestinians. Their own words condemn them.
To defend those Palestinians’ rights, to protect the two-state solution and to see Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in safety and security, this Government are taking action. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. As he said, the situation in the middle east and the suffering we see is serious and completely intolerable, and I reiterate what I said in response to the statement last week about this desperation and suffering being completely unacceptable. We continue to see violence, deaths and casualties, including near aid distribution centres, which is incomprehensible and should simply never happen.
Britain has continued to leverage its influence with Israel and our international allies at every opportunity to change the course of the events that the world is witnessing—to ensure that the remaining hostages are released, that aid reaches those who need it and that a sustainable end to this conflict is achieved. We all want a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and the UK must continue to play a leading role in achieving that. To do so, the UK needs to have constructive channels of communication open with all our partners in the region, as we work towards peace and an end to this conflict, and that includes dialogue with Israel.
The sanctioning of individuals is always under review, which is the right policy, and in the case of Israel, that was previously considered by Lord Cameron, who spoke about it in the last Government. Will the Minister explain the timings of this decision, and can he give an assessment of the impact that the sanctions will have? I have read the Foreign Office statement on asset freezes, travel bans and director disqualifications, and these measures will have the right effect only if we work with allies. The statement refers to action being taken with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had on this issue with other partners, including the United States of America, and their response?
Given this decision and others that are being taken, can the Minister give his honest assessment of the UK Government’s relationship with Israel? What direct communication have he and the Foreign Secretary had with Israel on securing the delivery of vital, lifesaving humanitarian aid to people in desperate need of help?
As the Minister heard last week, the Opposition have been clear that settler violence is not helpful at all; it is taking things backwards when it comes to delivering the two-state solution. We again urge Israel not to take steps that could make the two-state solution even more difficult. We have consistently been committed to a two-state solution, delivered in the right way and at the right time, and we will work constructively to support every effort to achieve this.
Can the Minister provide an update on the progress being made with the Palestinian Authority on reforms, following the memorandum of understanding that was signed in April? The House will understand that credible governance is needed for long-term stability in the west bank and Gaza, and of course, that means no future role for Hamas.
More widely, the reports on the latest rounds of negotiations on hostage releases and bringing an end to the conflict are frustrating for us all; there has not been the progress that we all desperately want to see. Can the Minister provide an update on the direct discussions he is involved in, including with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and other allies in the region? The remaining hostages, held in captivity by the Iranian-backed terrorists, have faced over 600 days of suffering in horrific conditions, and securing their release continues to be critical to seeking an end to this conflict.
We all want to see aid get into Gaza, to the innocent Palestinians who are suffering. We have discussed the need for vital food, medicines and shelter in previous statements, and I completely recognise and understand the difficulties associated with getting aid in. Can the Minister provide an update on the amount and types of aid that the UK continues to support and fund directly through partners, where that aid is, and the efforts to get it in?
The House will know, as I said in response to the Minister’s statement last week, that my noble friend Lord Cameron previously worked with the Israeli Government and with allies to secure aid, and to open up crossings and ports, and so increase the number of trucks and the volume of aid entering Gaza. Will the Minister confirm that, working with our partners, he has spoken to or presented a clear plan to Israel that supports more aid going in, and an increase in the volume of aid? Will we make use of our long-standing experience? Obviously, Britain leads the world on getting aid; we have expertise and a strong track record.
Finally, will the Minister give an update on the actions being taken to restart dialogue and discussions on the viability of the Abraham accords, and on progress in delivering the Cairo plan? As the House knows, the Cairo plan is important because it is backed by local and regional allies, and it gives the Egyptian Government a pivotal and vital role in securing peace in the region. Those are essential conditions that we need to meet to create peace, stability and a better future for Israel and Palestine.
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. She raises important points about work with allies. Let me address what she said about Egypt, which is vital. The Egyptians have conducted important work, and I am pleased that I will be with them next week at the two-state solution conference to discuss the reconstruction of Gaza. She is absolutely right that we need to focus on working with partners in the region and beyond to ensure that vital building blocks are put in place for a reformed Palestinian Authority and a rebuilt Gaza. We can all see how acute that need is.
I am grateful to the Speaker and to colleagues for their flexibility this evening, as we deliver this statement in a slightly unusual way. We have sought to work with partners, and to co-ordinate closely with those who are part of this statement. We are also co-ordinating with others. We have had direct discussions with a range of partners, including the United States, about some of these questions.
We have spoken to the Israeli Government directly today. The right hon. Lady invites me to comment on the state of the relationship between the UK and Israel. The state of disagreement is clear. I regret the tone of some of our exchanges most recently. We do not wish to have such a profound disagreement with the Israeli Government, but when we disagree as profoundly as we do, then I am afraid that as Minister for the middle east, I have to say so both publicly and privately, and that is what I have done.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have long called for comprehensive sanctions on Israel in response to its crimes against the Palestinian people, so the sanctions against two far-right Ministers are a step in the right direction, but Israel’s war crimes are about far more than a couple of bad apples, so much, much more needs to be done. When Russia invaded Ukraine, over 2,500 sanctions were rightfully imposed on Russia, so I say to the Minister, is it not time for Russia-style sanctions on Israel to help stop the genocide?
Mr Falconer
I want to be really clear that the two men against whom we have announced sanctions today do not represent the majority of Israelis. There are so many connections between the UK and Israel, and we hear about the extent to which the decisions, rhetoric and language of those two Ministers cause concern in Israel as well. We are taking action on extremist rhetoric and extremist actions that threaten the human rights of Palestinians, and that continues to be the threshold for these sanctions, which we will keep under review.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I also thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the step taken by the Government to sanction the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. It is only right that they face consequences for their relentless calls for the forced dispossession of Palestinians, which have so egregiously undermined prospects for securing a just and sustainable peace in the region. My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was the first to call for these sanctions last February, when the Ministers’ extremist views were already clear. My only disappointment is that the Conservatives refused to act when they had the chance to do so, and that it has taken this Government nearly a year to take this important step.
It is essential that the Government keep taking steps towards a just resolution of the conflict. That must include getting aid in, getting the hostages out, and agreeing an enduring ceasefire. In the last week, we have seen the product of the extremism advanced by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich: the death of more Palestinians, who were queueing in desperation for food from the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Calls for Palestinian displacement can no longer be tolerated, so will the Government build on today’s progress by urgently considering sanctions on other extremist Ministers who continue to call for the blockade of Gaza and for expanded military action in the strip, starting with Israel Katz?
The time has come to listen to Members in all parts of this House and officially recognise the independent state of Palestine. Will the Government commit to taking that vital step at next week’s summit in New York? Recognition will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to self-determination, and will make it clear that, building on today’s announcement, the UK will do all it can to wrest control away from the extremes and give both Israelis and Palestinians hope of a lasting peace.
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The two-state solution conference next week is an important moment. We are discussing with our friends and allies our approach to that conference, and no doubt I will return to this House next week—with your permission, Mr Speaker—to discuss that further. I will not speculate on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box. We have taken these steps because of the extremist rhetoric and the damage that these two men have done to Palestinian human rights, and we will keep further sanctions under review.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I very much welcome the statement from the Minister. It is absolutely right to target the enemies of peace in the Netanyahu Government; their will is entirely separate and different from the will of the Israeli people. I very much welcome the Minister’s reference to supporting civilised society in Israel and Palestine, and it is true that there can be no top-down two-state solution without building those communities. Will the Minister update the House on the UK’s proposals for an international fund for Israeli and Palestinian peace?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend from the east midlands. He has long been committed to these issues, and particularly to the difficult but vital work of ensuring that civil society in Israel and Palestine works on peace-building projects. I know that he was in the region recently, and I commend him for his approach. We hope to set out our approach to the international fund in due course, following the announcements of the Prime Minister. We want to make as full a contribution as we can to bringing peacemakers on both sides of this conflict together.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
As you know, Mr Speaker, I have tried for two days to raise this issue through an urgent question. When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box, I expected to hear something constructive; what we have actually heard about is the sanctioning of two people. The United Kingdom Government could unilaterally recognise Palestine and show the world that they are taking the lead. Above all, they could, as an absolute priority, negotiate the delivery of food, water and medicine to women and children in Palestine who are starving through the route from Larnaca directly into Gaza. I asked the Minister last week, and I will ask him again: when are the Government going to do something?
Mr Falconer
In this House, we have to be focused on what the real options are for getting aid at volume into Gaza. The truth is that it must be done via land routes, and even when aid gets into Gaza by land, that is still incredibly dangerous for aid workers. Ultimately, deconfliction mechanisms for aid workers in Gaza will be vital, should a full aid operation be again allowed in the strip. I met this week with the bereaved families of the victims from the World Central Kitchen operation. There were three British veterans lost while trying to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, and three British families are still mourning the loss of their loved one at the hands of the Israel Defence Forces. If there was some other option to get aid into Gaza safely, we would take it. No such option exists. We have to negotiate access with the Israeli Government, and that is what we seek to do.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions announced today, which are long overdue and signify an important step forward. I thank the Minister for his hard work and strong statement on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and I were denied entry by Israel into the Occupied Palestinian Territories precisely because we spoke out against war crimes in Gaza and against annexation in the west bank. Annexation is real—it is happening. Partners in the region are calling for recognition before it is too late.
Today the US ambassador to Israel reiterated what many fear: that the US will not prioritise a Palestinian state becoming a reality in our lifetime. Does the Minister agree that we must not throw recognition into the long grass, that failure to recognise next week at the UN conference implies that Israel does have a veto, and that the Israeli Government will continue to annex and terrorise Palestinians in the west bank? If we do not recognise now, there will be no Palestinian state to recognise. Does the Minister agree that we must recognise a Palestinian state at the UN conference next week?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment to these issues. Clearly, recognition is right at the centre of any discussion of a two-state solution. The actions we have announced today are part of the UK’s efforts to ensure that the reality of a two-state solution remains in play. It is clear from the rhetoric of the two Ministers we have sanctioned, as well as others in the Israeli Government, that there is limited commitment on the side of the Israeli Government to advancing that cause. The UK is committed to advancing that cause, and we will talk to our friends and allies in the run-up to the conference next week.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I have absolutely no sympathy with the comments and rhetoric of the two Israeli Ministers that the Minister has announced sanctions on. In his statement, the Minister said clearly, “we will not sit by while extremists wreck the prospects of future peace”. If the action he has just announced is not to be seen as a double standard, where are the sanctions against Ministers within the Palestinian Authority who have incited violence and made vile comments of hatred against Jews and Israelis?
Mr Falconer
As I am afraid I say with regularity, I will not speculate on further sanctions on either side of the conflict from the Dispatch Box, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the thresholds and tests are the same. We condemn antisemitic rhetoric, we condemn incitement to violence, and we will keep all sanctions under review.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The sanctions imposed on the two Israeli Ministers are long overdue, but a welcome first step. I continue to ask the Minister and the Foreign Secretary: why are we still arming Israel, when will we impose an arms embargo and when will we ban goods from settlements? Finally—the Minister has already alluded to this—the conference on the two-state solution in New York next week is a crucial moment in the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Minister has the opportunity at this Dispatch Box to share with the House that the UK Government are committed to recognising Palestinian statehood. Will he do so?
Mr Falconer
I feel that I need to take issue with the idea that this is the first step that this Government have taken in relation to these issues. I have been at this—
Mr Falconer
It is not the first step in relation to sanctions either; this is the third set of sanctions we have announced in relation to settlements in the west bank. On the two-state solution conference next week, we are talking with our friends and allies. I am sure that—with your permission, Mr Speaker—I will be back in this House next week to talk about that.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that in Gaza, “humanity is failing”. What is happening in Gaza surpasses any acceptable legal, moral or humane standard. Palestinians are being stripped of their dignity. When will the Minister pronounce that they have a state, and given that Israel continues to blockade Gaza, what more will he do? He talks about first steps—he needs to run.
Mr Falconer
It was not me who talked about first steps. We have taken a sequence of measures, and we will continue to take measures. The blockade of aid into Gaza is reprehensible, and I have talked about the famine that faces the whole of the strip. The steps we have taken today will not unlock aid into Gaza. We will continue to advocate, to press, and to take further measures until aid into Gaza is unlocked.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I stand with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). She and I were denied entry to Israel only two months ago, and one of the reasons given was our advocacy for the sanctions that the Government have introduced today. I stand by my comments and by the Government’s decisive action today. As the Minister has mentioned, it is important that this action has been taken to uphold the rights of Palestinians. The UK, along with its international allies, can take further action by recognising the state of Palestine. What more can the Minister do—and what more can all of us in this House do—to press our international allies to come to that decision collectively?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. She went to the region to see with her own eyes, as she did repeatedly as a much-respected journalist and author before she came to this House. I know her commitment to these issues, and I can assure her that we are talking with the full range of our friends and allies about the approach to the two-state solution conference next week.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, but can he tell the House whether he thinks these sanctions will save a single Palestinian life? If he will forgive me, ahead of the Palestinian recognition summit—rather than the two-state solution summit; maybe that was a slip of the tongue by the Minister—next week in New York, some observers looking at today’s statement might be suspicious that there is a cynical coincidence in its timing. Can he reassure the House, and all those who are very concerned about this issue, that the United Kingdom Government have not done some grubby deal behind the scenes with the American Administration, trading today’s set of sanctions for saying no to recognition in New York next week?
Mr Falconer
I called next week’s conference what it is called by the French and Saudi Arabian authorities. I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that I have done no deals, grubby or otherwise; we take sovereign steps on this issue.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked about timing. As I know many Members will appreciate, working in concert with our allies and making a joint announcement of this kind requires some co-ordination. I was in the Chamber last Wednesday, when I was understandably asked by many Members when I would be in a position to announce further steps. I would have liked to have been in a position to announce further steps earlier than I have been, but we have always taken the view that it is most powerful to act with our allies. As such, we took the time to enable us to work in concert with them.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Many of us have been consistent in our calls for sanctions against those who commit war crimes in Gaza, so the sanctions placed on these two far-right Ministers today are a step in the right direction. But let us be clear: this is nowhere near enough. Palestinians starve and aid is blocked in flagrant violation of international law while the UK continues to allow arms exports to Israel. We cannot condemn the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza while continuing to arm those who contribute to it. The Government must act now and end all arms sales to Israel. Anything less is not just a failure of diplomacy; it is an absolute failure of moral leadership in the face of a genocide.
Mr Falconer
Let me be really clear for the House: we are not selling arms—not bombs, not bullets—for use by Israel in Gaza. We have a carve-out in the F-35 programme in order to maintain the programme, which we and so many of our allies benefit from, but where F-35 parts were directly being sold to Israel, that trade is suspended. We are not providing the weaponry that is being used in Gaza. I reassure my hon. Friends that I and the Government do not think that the actions we have taken today will be the golden answer to getting aid into Gaza. They will not be the golden answer for securing a ceasefire. We will continue to work on all those fronts until we achieve progress.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Although we welcome the sanctioning of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, that should have happened a long time ago, and we now need to go much, much further. Further to the previous question, today’s announcement highlights the absurdity of the Government’s position. The Foreign Secretary recently described those Ministers’ views as “repellent” and “monstrous” and today’s statement accepts that Israel is guilty of human rights abuses and is in flagrant breach of international law. On what basis—legal or moral—can the Government continue to supply F-35 components, knowing that the end user will be a regime that they themselves have condemned for espousing repellent and monstrous views, and which they now accept is guilty of human rights violations and is in flagrant breach of international law?
Mr Falconer
For the purposes of time, I will not address the legal questions, not least given that they are being considered by a judicial review. We are confident that the limited carve-out we have done to maintain the functioning of the F-35 programme, which is vital to our national security and that of so many of our allies, is legal, proportionate and moral, and we will continue to fight that case in court.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement. It is a huge and significant step that sends a clear message to the Israeli Government. However, millions of people in Gaza go to bed every night, if they can even find a bed to sleep on, unsure whether they will wake up in the morning and whether their family members, who might have survived so far, will wake up with them. Does the Minister agree that we must take the next vital step towards the two-state solution, which is for the UK to recognise the state of Palestine next week at the conference that France and Saudi Arabia are leading on?
Mr Falconer
I will not repeat my answers about the conference next week, but my hon. Friend has been committed to these issues for a long time, and she is absolutely right when she says that millions of people are in an abject position, facing famine and terrible shortages of all essential supplies, and they weigh very much on the mind of this Government each and every day.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The two Israeli Ministers that the Minister has announced are being sanctioned are no friends of the Israeli people or the Palestinians. I have no truck with them and nor should any of us. The reality is, though, is that there are two aspects to the situation. There is Hamas’s continued control of Gaza, and their refusal to release the hostages or agree to a hostage exchange, or indeed to allow aid in and let it reach the Palestinian people. There is also the challenge of releasing those hostages, which we all want to see happen. Hamas have refused the ceasefire deal. What action will the Minister take to ensure that Hamas come to the negotiating table and actually negotiate a ceasefire, so that international aid can get in? And while I am on my feet, what is the Government’s attitude towards those who attempt to break the blockade, such as the Madleen ship?
Mr Falconer
I called on Hamas to return to ceasefire talks when reports reached us that they were not doing so. I hope that those ceasefire talks are successful, and I of course repeat my call for hostages to be released. We have been clear about the blockade of aid, but I must once again reiterate that it is the land routes on which we must be completely focused; the land routes from Egypt, from Jordan and from Israel itself must be opened at the scale required to get the aid in.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank the Government for the sanctions that they have imposed. I appreciate that allies must work together and that it takes time to hold negotiations and put out joint statements—which are, I agree, more powerful—but I would find it helpful to be able to tell my constituents and the country what the Government’s position will be as they go into the negotiations in America next week. Will their offer be, “Yes, we should recognise Palestine immediately,” and if not, why not?
Mr Falconer
I recognise the strength of feeling among constituents throughout the country, including those in the city of Lincoln. We go into the two-state solution conference clear in our commitment to the Palestinians’ inalienable right to a state that is safe and secure, alongside Israel, and we are talking to our friends and allies about the best method of securing that.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Government’s decision to sanction two Israeli Ministers is certainly welcome, but does the Minister acknowledge that every limb of the Israeli state is carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza? Sanctions must be extended to the entire state of Israel—not tomorrow, not in a week’s time, not in another 18 months’ time—alongside a full arms embargo and the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador.
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman is aware of the long-standing position on determinations in respect breaches of international law and crimes. I want to make it clear that our sanctions do not target the entirety of the Israeli people. They target two individuals who have been promulgating extremist rhetoric and action and have breached the rights of the Palestinians, and it is on that breach of rights that we are focused.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
We have been here nearly every week talking about these issues. The sanctions are welcome, but every speaker is sending the Minister the clear message that we should recognise the state of Palestine. If we do not recognise the state of Palestine, there will be no Palestine to recognise. My question is this: what is preventing that recognition from happening, especially given that the UK is among 50 countries that do not recognise Palestine? Do we need the permission of Netanyahu or any member of his Government to recognise it? If not, and if we are independent in making this decision, it should have been made long ago.
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that we do not need any permission to make policy decisions. I think that if we did, the Israeli Government would have a rather different attitude towards Britain’s Minister for the Middle East.
The position in relation to recognition is that we wish to provide a state in which Palestinians can live safe and secure, side by side with the Israelis. That looks distant at the moment, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. Those reasons need to be addressed. We want to see progress, and we will consider our own position as part of the best possible way in which we can make a contribution.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sanctions are no remedy when it comes to the imperilled two-state solution. Is the Minister going to the conference with a plan?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman always asks succinct and clear questions. As he will recall, I was a diplomat for a long time. Sanctions are no remedy; they are an expression of a failure in the international system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said, we have heard week after week about the agonies. We do go to the conference with a plan, but it is a conference called by our friends and allies, and we are discussing our approach closely with them.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister, and his team and officials, on all that they have done. I do not underestimate the amount of work that has been put in, especially the work with our international allies that has brought us to where we are. As the Minister can see, however, there is always a demand for more, as there should be given what we know is going on. May I add my voice to those of all who have said that hopefully this is the lead-up a successful announcement next week, with our allies, about recognition of the Palestinian state?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words about both me and officials in the diplomatic service, who have worked tirelessly. As I said in response to another hon. Member, I had hoped that we could make this announcement even sooner, but it is through no fault of those in the hard-working British diplomatic service, who have done everything they can to ensure that we make the most impactful sanctions announcement possible.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The two sanctioned Ministers have been enabled by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is himself subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, and I wonder what the Government will do to make sure that that is properly pursued. When I was in the west bank only a week after the two Labour Members were shamefully deported, it was very clear that the settlements are taking over. What sanctions will the Government take to ensure that there is no trade with those settlements?
Mr Falconer
The settlements are not bound by the trade preferences between the UK and Israel, and products must be properly labelled. They attract different tariffs and should be traded as such. Where there are breaches of those regulations, they should be investigated.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions announced today by the Minister, which have been taken in conjunction with our allies, and his commitment to a Palestinian state. However, people in Gaza are starving. I want to update the Minister on one such person: Dr Radi, the elderly and frail father of my constituent Mo Radi. A few weeks ago, Dr Radi sought shelter in Al-Awda hospital with over 100 medical staff and patients, as he is a former practising doctor there. No food was allowed in, and the IDF destroyed the main water tanks. The hospital was bombed, and when Dr Radi left the hospital, he was stripped and humiliated by the IDF. He is now hungry, ill and alone, as the rest of his family in Gaza have been killed. What are we doing to protect the most vulnerable from dying? We need to increase aid and evacuations, and to end the killing in Gaza.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend describes the heartbreaking case of her constituent’s family member, which she has raised with me on a number of occasions. Members from across the House have done the same, and I am usually not in a position to discuss such cases on the Floor of the House. Where constituents and their families are affected, we will do everything that we can to try to support them. We have heard a great deal about the restrictions on aid, and it is candidly not easy to support people to leave Gaza, but where there is a UK connection, I am always keen to do what I can to try to secure people’s safety.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s statement and the sanctions, but I fear that those who have just been sanctioned will either shrug their shoulders and say, “So what?”, or, worse, wear them as a badge of honour among their cohort.
Casting forward to next week’s conference, is the Minister alert to and seized of what is a very significant development in this place, which is the near-unanimous support for a positive declaration from His Majesty’s Government on moving towards a two-state solution and the recognition of Palestine? That would be a very big step forward, and I hope the nuance of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary is not lost on the Minister. He will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends from across the spectrum of the Conservative party have written twice to the Prime Minister to urge that course of action, and to pledge that we will give wholehearted and full-throated support to such an initiative. I just hope the Minister knows that when he and officials go to the conference, he is armed with the good will of this place to give some dynamism and impetus to the process, to recognise Palestine, to show leadership, and to use our good offices among our allies in the region to bring this utter torture to an end as quickly as possible.
Mr Falconer
I am a proud son of the Labour party and I have mostly attended to developments in my own party, but the many forceful interventions from the Opposition Benches on these questions have not escaped me. The many powerful speeches, particularly from those who previously held other views, are important contributions. I know they are watched widely by our friends and allies across the world, and indeed by many in Israel, and I take full and sober note of them.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, and for the work he has done and continues to do on this issue. The people of Pembrokeshire watch in despair the events unfolding on their TV screens—the death, the horror, the humanitarian catastrophe. I add my voice and my constituents’ voices to those urging the Minister that we need two states for a two-state solution, so when will the Government recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and I recognise the strength of feeling in Pembrokeshire, Lincoln and so many other places. I will not repeat for him the manifesto commitment on which we were both elected. I am sure his interest, like that of so many in this House, will be on the conference next week, and we are of course talking with our friends and allies about our approach to it.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
An 11-year-old constituent wrote to me, and simply said,
“why are we not doing more?”
That sums up the outrage in Yeovil at the crisis in Gaza. Can the Minister tell my constituent what steps he has taken with allies to ensure that all aid routes to Gaza are reopened, and what consequences there will be if they are not?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent asks a perfectly reasonable question. I often feel frustrated in this House by my inability to say what we are doing diplomatically with our allies and partners, which I cannot always advertise on the Floor of the House as we are doing it. I am sure it was obvious to many Members during the statement last week that work was ongoing on this package of sanctions, and I understood the frustration of so many Members, which I am sure is shared by his 11-year-old constituent, that I could not say more then. I would like to reassure them and the House that, whenever we are not in this place, we are working with our friends and allies behind the scenes to try to reopen aid routes, secure the release of hostages and ensure a two-state solution.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The sanctioning of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is welcome news, not least because theirs are the loudest voices calling for annexation of the west bank. The settlement building and forced displacement of Palestinians are accelerating, and surely it is time to recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the 22% of mandate Palestine that remains to them, before that too is entirely eaten away.
Mr Falconer
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and powerful contribution. I will not repeat the position on recognition, but we recognise the force of what he says, which is that the situation has deteriorated, settlements have increased very significantly over the last year, as has settlement violence, and it is unacceptable.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a sad day when the UK Government and the Governments of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Norway feel it necessary to sanction Government Ministers in the state of Israel, one of our closest allies, but it is the right thing to do. Can I, however, counsel the Minister, if I may be so presumptuous, against performative politics, and ask him how many mouths will be fed, how much violence against Palestinians in the west bank will be avoided or averted, and how much closer are we to achieving the two-state solution that we all want to see as a result of the action he has announced today?
Mr Falconer
As my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman can, of course, counsel me, and I am grateful for his support on the measures we have taken. As I said to another of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), I recognise that sanctions are not a remedy: this will feed no Palestinians. I hope it will deter, but we have no guarantees that it will save any Palestinian lives. However, we think these are important statements of principle and actions that demonstrate not just to the two individuals, but to Israeli society, where we stand on these questions.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Many of us have urged this course of action on the Government for some time now, and the imposition of sanctions on these two individuals and others in the Israeli Government is something that is, perhaps, over time. However, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement this evening and the hard work that has gone into getting us to this point. I understand the importance of working in concert with our allies, but if the co-operation of our allies is not forthcoming, will the UK Government, given the strength of feeling across the Chamber, unilaterally recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I will not speculate too far on hypotheticals, but I am, of course, a British Minister; I take decisions on behalf of the British Government. We will act alone where we have to, but we act whenever we can with our friends and allies, as that is the way we have the greatest impact.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister has laid out with some passion the dystopian hell that Gaza has become and the unfolding and ongoing disaster in the west bank. Why, then, as many Members have asked, has he done the absolute bare minimum? We all know in this House, after the previous rounds of sanctions, that there will be absolutely no difference on the ground for the Palestinians. I said last week—I am sorry to be cynical about it—that I thought the House was being played. My confident prediction now, given this announcement, is that recognition, which was being advertised for the conference next week, is off the table. Can the Minister tell me that I am wrong?
Mr Falconer
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has made these points with some force for the past year, but I would caution him against being quite as cynical as he is. We are doing everything we can. We recognise that what we have announced today will not be a remedy to the situation we find ourselves in, as I have just said to one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). However, I encourage the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) not to cast such cynicism around the Government’s motives. This Government care deeply about what is happening in Gaza. We are so incredibly frustrated by the scenes that meet us and everyone on the Benches behind me. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he has no monopoly on the morality of the situation.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House tonight and for the steps that have been taken, given the despicable actions of the two Israeli Ministers cited throughout the statement. Of course, more must be done. Does the Minister recognise the UN special rapporteur’s characterisation of Israel’s approach to aid delivery as “brutal humanitarian camouflage”? What further measures will the Government take to challenge grotesque attempts to use aid as a cover for ongoing violence towards Palestinians, including further sanctions and, critically, the recognition of a Palestinian state?
Mr Falconer
We have been very clear about the nature of the new aid arrangements involving the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It has proven deadly and incapable of supplying aid at the levels so desperately needed. I have said so repeatedly, and we will continue to make these points with force.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Regardless of what one may think of the views expressed by the two Ministers who are subject to sanctions today, the fact is that this is nothing new—they have been saying it for a long time without sanctions. The question that must be asked today is: why now? The Minister must know that this will not bring peace to Gaza, and it will not stop Israel pursuing the terrorists it is bound to pursue in order to free the hostages and release its grip on Gaza, with the danger that presents to Israel. Is this a case of the Minister pandering to the increasingly loud anti-Israel voices on his Back Benches, and does he not know that this will only encourage Hamas not to release the hostages and not to agree to a ceasefire?
Mr Falconer
I have spoken about the perilous decline of the situation in the west bank and, indeed, the events of the past two weeks. I have also spoken about the importance of co-ordinating with allies, so I do not think that I have anything further to say about the timing of the announcement.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Government are right to sanction these Israeli Ministers whose encouragement of mass atrocity crimes is an outrage. Further, such action must follow quickly. Also an outrage is the news of starving Palestinians being shot and killed by Israeli soldiers and foreign mercenaries as they try to access aid in Gaza. Let me ask the Minister this: as the fabric of Palestinian life is being destroyed by the Israeli military, and if the two-state solution is not to be an empty slogan, as he says, then is this not the time for our country to unconditionally and immediately recognise the state of Palestine? If this is not the time, when is?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as the chief executive of Medical Aid for Palestinians. I recognise that there is almost nobody in this House who has more lived experience of what this crisis looks like. I will not add to my answers on recognition or on the conference next week, but I pay tribute to her work, which was brave, courageous and important.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Restrictions on aid, fuel, food and even water in Gaza is inhumane and unacceptable. If the Minister cannot get a decision next week to recognise the state of Palestine, will he at least ask for a collective message to be sent to our allies, the Israelis, that these restrictions are unacceptable and that, unless they are reversed, serious consequences will follow?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have delivered that message with our 26 partners on aid and we have been clear that, unless the situation changes, further actions with the leaders of France and Canada will flow. I will not repeat my answers about the conference next week, but I thank him for the important focus that he puts on the humanitarian situation.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome today’s decision by the UK Government to work with other international allies to sanction these extremist Israeli Ministers. Just to remind ourselves how extremist they are, Finance Minister Smotrich promised that
“not even a grain of wheat”
will enter the Gaza strip. This is a man whose extremism and disregard for the Israeli hostages are matched only by his absolute contempt for Palestinian lives. He said that it is “good” that the war has begun but “unfortunate” that it started the way that it did. “Unfortunate”—that is how he described 7 October. In the spirit of today’s international alliance with other countries, will the Government now seize the moment to recognise the state of Palestine next week in New York?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is very committed to these issues. He rightly points to some of the rhetoric and extremist language that has been used by these two men. I will not repeat my answers in relation to the conference next week. We will work with our friends and allies on our approach.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary summoned the Israeli ambassador to meet the Minister two weeks ago and we were asked to “wait and see” what positive steps would come from the meeting. Since then, we have seen violence and attacks on vulnerable people increase by the state of Israel. The ambassador has repeatedly rejected a two-state solution. Given that 200,000 people have now signed a petition to expel her from this country, has the Minister given any consideration to further action on the ambassador?
Mr Falconer
I summoned the Israeli ambassador and set out the strength of views to the Israeli Government that the British Government feel on these questions. It is of vital importance that we have an Israeli ambassador. Whatever the views of this House, it is important that we maintain relations. We also have an ambassador from Iran in London, and that is important, too. We need to be able to deliver messages to friends, to allies and to those with whom we do not enjoy good relations. We will continue to host ambassadors because of the importance of maintaining those diplomatic relations.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Minister was absolutely right: our dispute and anger is not with the Israeli people but with their leaders, who use their murderous forces to inflict this annihilation on the Palestinian people. The Minister has said that sanctions are not remedies, and that they are an expression of our opinion, but the acid test will be whether the measures actually have an impact and bring about the end to the killing.
I also have to respectfully disagree with the Minister, because as a state party to the genocide, Geneva and Vienna conventions, the UK has a binding obligation to: prevent genocide; refrain from recognising, aiding or assistance an illegal situation arising from serious breaches of peremptory norms of international law; and avoid trade, funding or co-operation that enables or legitimises these violations. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking to this House to come back in short order to announce further sanctions that will concentrate their mind, because the fear is that these sanctions will not? Will he also indicate whether, in the absence of a firm commitment to recognise the state of Palestine, His Majesty’s Government will support a vote in this House, by other means, to express the will for that recognition of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I have come to this House on a number of occasions to talk about a number of things the British Government have done in relation to this situation. I say that sanctions are no remedy; they are no remedy in this situation. They are so often not a remedy in the many circumstances in which we apply them. I feel much greater satisfaction when we announce positive steps that we have taken—aid that has gone in, partnerships with the region. It is with regret, always, that we announce sanctions. I will not speculate on what further we may introduce in this case or any other, as my hon. Friend will understand. I recognise the limitations of sanctions, but under these circumstances, the Government judged that we had no choice but to express the strength of our feeling through sanctions. On the questions of international humanitarian law, I repeat once again this Government’s commitment to abiding by all our IHL obligations.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I have spoken on a number of occasions in recent weeks about recognition of Palestine, and I put on record again that I think we should proceed with it. Certainly, a vote in this House, as was suggested a moment ago, would strengthen the Government’s position and, I would have thought, be helpful in international negotiations. The Minister mentioned four other countries that have sanctioned the two Ministers today. Is he anticipating that further countries will follow suit, and what negotiations are taking place to achieve that goal?
Mr Falconer
We have had discussions with other countries, but I would not wish at the Dispatch Box to speculate on what steps they may take following this.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently visited Israel and Palestine on a delegation and met Opposition leaders, and their top ask of the UK—what they said would be helpful for them—was strong sanctions, so I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but does he not agree that we should be placing strong sanctions on all Ministers in the Israeli Government? This is not just about rhetoric; it is about actions. With thousands of deaths in Gaza, we need to see stronger sanctions on all Ministers in the Israeli Government.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the effort she put in to travel to the area and to meet those in Israel and beyond. To be clear, the sanctions announced are not sanctions on the two Ministries that the men represent. They are sanctions on the men themselves and the extremist rhetoric that they are responsible for. We would keep further sanctions under review on individuals who conducted rhetoric of that kind.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome the sanctions that have been announced on these two individuals, but I believe that they should go further. The Minister said in his statement that no arms are now going to Israel, but he was unclear about the component parts for F-35 jets, which are still in the global supply chain and presumably could be bought by Israel, and he was silent on the use of RAF Akrotiri and the flights that overfly Gaza. Is security co-operation with Israel continuing? Is information being given to Israel that it can use to continue the disgraceful and disgusting bombing of starving people in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to clarify that the British Government are not providing information to enable the bombing campaign in Gaza. The decisions that we took in relation to arms suspension bind the whole Government—they are not just the decisions of the Foreign Office—and represent a sober, reasoned, serious analysis of the risks of breaches of international humanitarian law, and they bind the Government in our approach. I will take brief issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of my remarks, because I have been clear on the F-35 point. We continue to be clear on that point. Indeed, we have explained it at length in court.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make the statement and for the strong action that the Government are taking to make it clear that we hold no truck with extremists who care nothing for peace, but we must go further. He will know the strength of feeling on the Labour Benches on this issue, particularly on recognition of a Palestinian state. I reimpress that on him and hope that he will be here in a fortnight’s time as the Minister who recognised Palestine. Will he advise the House on what discussions he is having about the appalling interception of the British-flagged yacht Madleen, yet again preventing much-needed aid from reaching the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. While I am always glad to come to the House, I reassure her constituents and those of many Labour Members that even were I not glad to do so, they would certainly summon me. I am always glad to answer questions from my hon. Friend, and indeed from hon. Members on both sides of the House. In relation to the Madleen, I confirm that the UK pressed the Israeli authorities before its arrival to ensure that any action taken was in line with international law, would be undertaken with restraint and would be resolved safely for the passengers on board.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Next week, I will be meeting the families of some of the remaining Israeli hostages. I am sure that the whole House wants to see their safe return, and wants peace at last for the Palestinian population of Gaza and the west bank. The killing, the misery, the starvation and the genocide have gone on for far too long. Will the Government do the right thing by recognising the state of Palestine now? For a two-state solution, there must be two states.
Mr Falconer
I will not rehearse the arguments on recognition, but I know that so many hon. Members, myself included, have met hostage families who view the events with terrible dismay. I will not put words in their mouths from the Dispatch Box. Their views are varied, their distress and their anger are palpable, and we have them in our thoughts every day.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House for the statement and the announcement of sanctions. We have all watched with horror the scenes of desperate people trying to access food—the most basic thing that we need to survive. While we can understand why our constituents have a sense of hopelessness, we should not have that in this place, because we have considerable agency. What steps is he taking, with allies and aid organisations, to establish secure maritime corridors for humanitarian aid to Gaza? Does he agree with me and hon. Members across the House that now is the time to recognise an independent sovereign state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I welcome the tone and spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. We do have agency in this House. The frustrations that are felt by so many, both within and without the House, are completely understandable and justifiable. This Government have sought change and have been frustrated by how slow that change has been, but we will continue to work for a better situation for those in Gaza, for those in west bank and, of course, for those in Israel.
My hon. Friend asks about maritime corridors, which are an important but, ultimately, relatively peripheral part of any aid operation if it is to be at the scale required. There were maritime corridors supported in an earlier phase of the conflict and they did important work, but ultimately the three road crossings into Jordan, Egypt and Israel are the most practical, most viable, and most tried and tested routes to get aid in at the scale and with the flexibility required to meet the needs of those in the strip.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the announcement of sanctions on two extremist Ministers. It is long overdue and it is a bare minimum. On its own, it is likely to do little to stop extremist, illegal settlements and violence against Palestinian civilians. When will the Government implement a ban on settlement goods to stop the economy that fuels illegal settlements? Will the Minister today, clearly and unequivocally, call for illegal settlements to be dismantled, as the International Court of Justice has directed?
Mr Falconer
I will not repeat the answer about settlement goods that I gave earlier, but I want to be absolutely clear for the House that settlements are illegal under Israeli and international law and they should be dismantled.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions on Israeli Government Ministers announced today. Those two Ministers have shown the world who they are for a long time and this step, while welcome, is long overdue. The Minister speaks of the peril for the two-state solution. There cannot be a two-state solution that is realised without two states, so will he take with him to the summit next week the clearly expressed will of this House that this Government take a lead in the recognition of the Palestinian state? Also, is it not time for a full ban on settlement goods, so that we can be sure that consumers in this country play no part in a clear strategic attempt to undermine even the possibility of a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
I have heard the powerful interventions from my hon. Friend and many others across the House on the questions of recognition and settlement goods. The question around settlement goods is one of differentiating between Israeli goods—that is, those from within green line Israel—and those from illegal settlements. Illegal settlement goods are not eligible for the same trade provisions as those from within green line Israel. To breach that labelling requirement and so not be clear where the goods are produced is a breach of the relevant regulations.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I want to clarify some of the Minister’s earlier remarks in response to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and in his previous answer. The Minister said earlier that the trade in goods from settlements attracts a higher tariff. Will he therefore confirm that the British Government, by raising tariffs and taxes on that trade, are making money out of the illegal settlements in the west bank, and does he think that is acceptable?
Mr Falconer
Not quite—there are trade arrangements between the UK and Israel. We consider Israel to be green line Israel; we do not consider the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the settlements within them to be part of green line Israel. We have separate arrangements with the Palestinian Authority. Goods produced in illegal settlements should be labelled as such. That is not, let me clarify, a money-making scheme for the British Government.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Having had a number of conversations with the Minister about the importance of the new sanctions, I wholeheartedly welcome today’s announcement. Those two Ministers’ comments go well beyond what could be tolerated, accepted or explained away, and I am really glad that we have played a leading role in pulling together international partners to take a stand on this. However, as the Minister has pointed out, the humanitarian situation on the ground is getting increasingly dire for Gazans, who have been long deprived of the access to aid that they desperately need, so with this renewed call for international action that he has so clearly laid down today, how are we working with international partners to apply more pressure on Israel to finally get those land routes open and uninhibited flows of aid back to the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues and for his important question. As the House will see, the UK has led with 26 of our allies on a statement on humanitarian issues, and with three leaders from the UK, France and Canada, and today with five others in relation to the sanctions on those two men. I can assure the House that we will work with a range of our partners in different formats in order to achieve the objectives that I know are felt so keenly right across the house.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Ben-Gvir is so extreme that the Israeli Government themselves banned him from joining the army, and that was three decades ago. So if the Minister will please excuse me, I am not going to extend a warm welcome to this announcement. The fact is that this is a matter of trust. The Government tell us they are going to cease arms sales to Israel, yet F-35 fighter jet parts get to Israel, massacring young children. The Government tell us they are appalled by the actions of the Israeli Government, yet Government Ministers find themselves partying with the Israeli ambassador and Holocaust trivialisers. The Government tell us that they are ceasing trade deals with Israel, yet the very next week a trade envoy is sent to Israel to drum up business. Who are the Government trying to fool?
Mr Falconer
It is a shame that the hon. Member does not feel in a position to welcome these announcements. These are important steps taken with our allies. The UK is leading the world on these issues, and we will continue to do so.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the actions that the Minister has announced today, but we can no longer allow starving men, women and children to be murdered in cold blood while scrambling for food or visiting cemeteries at Eid, or to be burned alive in their houses. Will the Minister please be bolder, listen to the voices here tonight and lead the way by calling for a state of Palestine, just to give hope to those Palestinians who are already working for peace and the right to self-determination?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has a long interest in the communities of the region, and I recognise the emotion in her remarks. We have talked this evening about sanctions, about recognition and about aid. Hope will not feed the hungry people of the Gaza strip, and we will not cease until proper aid provision is provided to all those who need it in the strip. I will not repeat the answers I have already given about recognition.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The sanctions on the appalling extremists Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, while extremely overdue, are welcome—we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have been calling for them for some 16 months now. The Minister acknowledged in his statement that there is cross-party support for a two-state solution. He also said
“when we say something, we mean it.”
Yet he has repeatedly refused tonight to recognise the state of Palestine or to commit to recognising it at the summit next week. I remain wholly unconvinced by his reasons for refusing to do so, so let me try a different tack. This evening there are reports that the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has stated that the US is no longer pursuing the goal of an independent state of Palestine. Will this now bring a new urgency to recognising the state of Palestine and to the UK standing up and assuming its historic responsibility in the region, when Trump is abandoning the Palestinians?
Mr Falconer
I have answered the question about the approach to the conference. I have sought to be as clear as I can with the House about the importance of conducting diplomacy not on the Floor of the House, but with our allies and friends, in advance of such an important moment as next week. That is the approach that we will take.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for his commitment to peace, and for his unrelenting and tireless work towards it. A two-state solution must be protected. We cannot let that light—that hope—be extinguished. He is quite right in his comments. Today’s strong action is right, and it is welcomed by many of my constituents, but will he get even tougher? Will he get more aid in, stop the settler violence, stop the illegal settlements, and take a message from this House and this country about protecting Palestinians and their right to self-determination?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has been adamantly committed to these issues. He sets out all the right objectives, and I confirm to him that I take on board that message.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Last October, Lord Cameron said that, as Foreign Secretary, he had been working up plans to sanction extreme right-wing Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. What took the Government so long?
Mr Falconer
I hear many reports of what was being done in the Foreign Office on these questions before I got there. I think the House will probably agree that, since we arrived in government, we have taken rather a different approach across a whole range of questions; we restored funding to UNRWA on my very first day as a Minister and took the other steps that we have discussed at some length. It is very interesting to hear Lord Cameron’s recollections, but I am not sure that we will be taking many lessons from them.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
A British surgeon in Gaza described it as a “slaughterhouse”, babies are starving, and roads to aid are being described as “combat zones” by the IDF, so I welcome the sanctions on Israeli Ministers, who stated that they are
“destroying everything that remains in Gaza”.
Their actions bear all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and plausible genocide. It is clear that the majority of us in this place want to recognise the state of Palestine, as do many of the public. Will the Minister feed back to the Prime Minister our strength of feeling on recognising Palestine now?
Mr Falconer
I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about these questions, and how strongly Luton feels about them—as do so many in Lincoln, Burnley and elsewhere. I will take that message.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
A two-state solution requires all sides to see it as achievable, desirable and sustainable, so what practical steps have the Government taken with international partners to rebuild and support the Palestinian Authority, and how will they ensure that Hamas have no role in Palestinian governance, as the Minister said in his statement?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman asks a vital question. That was one of the central focuses of the visit of the Palestinian Prime Minister to the UK and the memorandum of understanding that we agreed with him. We welcome the recent statements of the Palestinian Authority on vital reforms, including on the so-called pay-for-slay provisions for welfare, and their statement in recent days that Hamas must have no role in the future governance of Gaza.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I certainly welcome the sanctions against the two Israeli Ministers, but collective responsibility dictates that the whole Cabinet is complicit, and the sanctions should perhaps have gone further. Human rights abuses are happening right in front of us. Settler violence has reached a record high. Illegal settlements are being constructed. Over 55,000 innocent men, women and children have died. Humanitarian aid is being cruelly withheld. Does the Minister agree that the recognition of the Palestinian state must be the next step?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I will not add to the answers on recognition that I have already given, nor will I speculate further on where future sanctions might be targeted.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
People in Gaza are starving. Those people are children, the sick and the elderly. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is unworkable and its operations are insufficient. Will the Government not just press for but develop an alternative plan for taking aid into the strip through a humanitarian corridor sponsored by the UN?
Mr Falconer
An alternative exists—an alternative that is tried and tested and has been developed over the course of this conflict—and it is called the United Nations and the international non-governmental organisation community. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The UK and its partners already have a model available, ready and waiting. Aid from Britain, among many other places, is waiting in places like al-Arish, close to the border with the strip. That operation must be allowed to proceed.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Innocent Palestinian civilians face a horrific choice: either they die of starvation, or they risk being killed while they queue up for aid. I welcome the sanctions announced by the Minister, but I want to press him for more detail about his engagement with our international allies on collectively putting pressure on the Israeli Government to allow free-flowing aid into Gaza for those who need it most, and who are in this situation through no fault of their own.
Mr Falconer
As I have said, we have worked with 26 partners on a statement on humanitarian issues, with five partners today on sanctions, and as one of three leaders. We will join our friends and allies at the two-state solution conference next week, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with friends and allies in a variety of formats to press these points.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I pay tribute to the work of my Oxfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for her work to try to get Palestine recognised. She has brought forward Bills in this House for many years to that effect. I also extend my thoughts to all UK Palestinians living here who fear for their families in Gaza.
Has the Minister tonight heard the House’s wish to recognise Palestinian statehood, and will he outline the steps the Government are taking to make sure that baby formula gets through as aid into the strip? Mothers are unable to feed their children, and it is terrifying to watch on TV. I hope he will press on that matter in particular.
Mr Falconer
I of course hear the voice of all parliamentarians who have spoken today, and on the many other occasions when we have had to discuss these issues. Like other Members, the hon. Gentleman presses me on one of many lifesaving items that are not currently going into the strip in the volumes required. They include medical provision, baby food, and the basic nutrition to deal with the famine that the IPC—Integrated Food Security Phase Classification—report warns all those in Gaza are at risk of. There is an urgent need for all such items to get in, and I assure him that we press that point.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions against extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, whose dehumanising rhetoric has contributed to the land grabbing on the west bank and the destructive situation we see in Gaza. I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for co-ordinating internationally on this, because together our actions are more powerful. Will he also co-ordinate on the devastating humanitarian situation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and private military contractors? We see civilians walking miles to get food; indeed, some of them are being killed by the Israel Defence Forces while simply queuing to get a meal, despite the state they are in. Will he co-ordinate with his international partners to apply pressure, and to challenge this illegal and cruel mechanism, and what steps will he take next week to ensure that the UK recognises the Palestinian state?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend rightly points to the limitations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; its model has proven deadly and incapable of supplying aid at the scale required. We have co-ordinated with our partners in the way that I have described. Next week, with Egypt, we will co-chair a working group on the reconstruction of Gaza, and I assure him, as I have assured other Members, that we will continue to work with our international partners on these questions until the situation improves.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
This Government appear willing to sanction selected Israeli Ministers, while groups that have openly supported the terrorists who carried out the terrorist atrocity on 7 October are being platformed at events like Glastonbury festival. It certainly screams double standards. Sadly, it is the Jewish people in the UK who are left to face the consequences, and who cannot walk the streets of London without being harassed. How can the UK sanction people who do not live here while those who share their hatred walk freely among us?
Mr Falconer
I condemn antisemitism unreservedly, in London or anywhere else. Let me be clear: Hamas—the whole organisation—is proscribed in the UK. When it comes to Hamas, we do not make the careful differentiation that I have made this afternoon between Israeli Ministers. The whole organisation, lock, stock and barrel, is proscribed by the UK Home Office. That has force under law, and it does not matter whether they are here or not. We continue to call on Hamas to release hostages, to return to a ceasefire, and to have no future role in the governance of Gaza.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
On 23 May, I stood in exactly the same spot where I am standing now and asked the Foreign Secretary to sanction Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, so I thank the Government for their action today. The Palestinian people are now in existential crisis. Even this week, we saw the Israeli military board a British-flagged vessel in international waters and confiscate it. Mass starvation events in Gaza continue, and as the Minister has said, there is increasing settlement action on the west bank. I have been to the region and met senior members of the Palestinian Authority, and I am proud that the Prime Minister took the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority into Downing Street, and that we have a trade envoy to Palestine. The Palestinian Authority is a government under occupation, and has all the effects of government, so what is stopping us from recognising them as the legitimate government of a state? What is the Minister’s view of the Palestinian Authority?
Mr Falconer
In our view, the Palestinian Authority is central to a two-state solution. We want to see it reformed and strengthened, and in control of both Gaza and the west bank. The MOU that we signed with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Mustafa, was part of those efforts.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Minister for his personal efforts to achieve some justice, and for the attempts to get aid into Palestine and Gaza in order to save lives. However, as a new Member, I have been coming to the Chamber for 11 months, riding on the coat-tails of many right hon. and hon. Members who have gone before me, and who are here today, who have been fighting for this cause for many years before I arrived. We have heard only words and rhetoric from the Government; there has been no meaningful action to save lives, beyond the aid that was allowed in earlier. What steps are the Government taking to finally get aid into Gaza, so that we can save the babies, the starving children, the mothers and all of humanity? Otherwise, tens of thousands of people will no longer be here in a few days’ time.
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The steps that we have taken have been concrete, but he is right that there remain terrible risks of famine and other circumstances that befall people when adequate aid is not allowed in. When proper water and sanitation is not provided, the risks of further humanitarian catastrophe are considerable. We will continue to press those points with the Israeli Government, alongside our friends and allies.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If the UK Government fail to recognise the state of Palestine next week, what message will it send to the perpetrators of this genocide and to the suffering Palestinians?
Mr Falconer
I do not think I have very much to add on our approach to the conference next week.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is vital that we get a clear and accurate picture of what exactly is happening on the ground. That is absolutely essential to ensure transparency. What are this Government doing to progress access for journalists into Gaza?
Mr Falconer
That is a vital question. The hon. Lady knows that journalists and most aid workers are not able to operate in Gaza, which provides considerable uncertainty about the events happening there. We are calling both for journalistic access and the access of aid workers and, vitally, for those people to be protected. More aid workers and many more journalists have been killed than anyone in this House could accept. We want people to be able to go in to deliver aid, to report freely and to be protected through deconfliction mechanisms.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Every day I wake to news of further atrocities in Gaza, and every week constituents come to ask me to put more pressure on our Government to go further and faster. While I welcome the news of sanctions and I commend the Minister for his hard work, surely this is just the beginning; as he said, the gravity of the situation demands further action. We must ensure accountability for all breaches of international humanitarian law. When will we recognise the state of Palestine? How will we ensure that vital aid reaches people in Gaza, who are beyond desperate?
Mr Falconer
I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that she does indeed press me on these issues, as do so many Members on my own Government Benches and across the House. I am not sure I entirely agree with her characterisation that this is the beginning, but I assure her that it is not the end until progress is made.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I certainly welcome the statement from the Minister with the imposition of sanctions on the two Israeli Ministers; although it is late in the day, that none the less requires our gratitude. Given that we have adopted this new precedent, will the Minister agree that any Member of the Knesset using language similar to that of the two Israeli Ministers will receive similar sanctions?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and the tone in which he asks it. I will not set out hypothetical circumstances under which we may take further sanction action from this Dispatch Box, but I reaffirm that the question and issue in these sanctions is the breach of Palestinian human rights. That is the basis on which we will consider further sanctions.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this important statement, but the reality is that 93% of children in Gaza—around 930,000—face the critical risk of famine. He has outlined what the Government have been doing in the past few months and continue to do, but will he tell us what more the British Government could do to ensure that food and medicine reach people who are starving?
Mr Falconer
I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all we can to try to ensure that food and medicine reach children and all those in need in Gaza. I will return to this House when I have further announcements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is much respected in this House. He has been at pains to emphasise that these sanctions are being placed on the people, not the Government, yet already media headlines out there are creating the image that Israel is being sanctioned. Will he underline and state the unwavering support that Israel has from him and this Government in its battle for survival against continued Hamas terrorism so that there can be no doubt that this nation remains standing with Israel?
Mr Falconer
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his courtesy in this House. I can reaffirm that this Government support the existence of the state of Israel, and we will continue to stand on its defence when required.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and hard work, and I believe he is genuinely concerned about what is happening in Gaza. We all want a two-state solution, a safe and secure Israel, and a sovereign state of Palestine, and we have already said that the illegal settlements of Israel are something that we condemn. We recognise the state of Israel. Can the Minister please give an explanation as to why we cannot now recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his important question. He knows our commitments to a Palestinian state as set out in our manifesto, and I will not rehearse them. It is our job as the British Government to create the conditions in which a Palestinian state can be viable and sovereign and can live in safety alongside a safe and secure Israel. It is to that task that we continue to put our efforts.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the sanctions that have been taken today against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich because their rhetoric and actions towards the Palestinian people are dangerous and extremist. But this is the third set of sanctions imposed by our Government against violent settlers and settlement entities, and they have unfortunately not stopped food being used as a weapon of war. What does the Minister think will stop food being used as a weapon of war, and what more can we do to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered into Gaza as a matter of urgency?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is exactly right to highlight the importance of aid not being used in service of a military or political objective. It must be delivered in a principled way in accordance with humanitarian principles. The United Nations and our international NGO partners have long experience of delivering aid in that way. That is why I have said over the course of the evening that we have an alternative to the GHF that will work, and that is the UN-supported operation.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement to the House and the steps the UK Government are taking thus far. The humanitarian assistance must not be obstructed, politicised or treated as a threat. What concrete steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that aid reaches all areas of Gaza without further delay or interference by the Israel Defence Forces to allow aid workers to carry out their lifesaving work without fear of injury or death, to secure the release of hostages back to their families and to finally recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
On aid provision within Gaza, as I know my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been much discussion on the importance of there being multiple distribution sites far in excess of those currently available. That helps manage the pressures and provides more humane conditions for aid delivery, and that is what we want to see in the strip.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his diligence and his patient answers and for an excellent statement. I agreed with every word of it, and I appreciate the actions that the Government have taken to sanction two Ministers, both of whom have expressed genocidal intent. The Minister is also correct in saying that the two-state solution is in peril. It seems from today that there is an overwhelming majority in this place that support the immediate recognition of Palestine, and I sense from his answers that the Government are moving in that direction. What can he also do around the ICJ judgment that the west bank has been annexed, and what more can we do to ensure that others are punished for their crimes in the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his important question. I am sure that, with the permission of the Speaker, I will be back in this House next week to discuss recognition and events at the conference in greater detail. On the question of the advisory opinion, which I know he knows is a far-reaching and complex advisory opinion, we will return to this House when we are in a position to give a full response to what is a complex and novel legal opinion.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his strong statement today and the sanctions he has outlined. I have listened carefully to his words, and he has spoken about the risk of empty slogans on the path to a two-state solution. I agree, but I fear we will be the last generation of diplomats and politicians for whom the option of recognising the state of Palestine is on the table. Will he reflect on that before next week’s meeting?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks an important question. It is very much on the minds of all those in the Government who work on these issues that the viability of a two-state solution requires physical facts on the ground. It requires territory for two states, and clearly, illegal settlements proceeding at the rate I described in my statement is an impediment and a threat to that two-state solution.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and warmly welcome the actions that have been announced today. This Government said that they would take concrete actions, and they have. However, given the urgency of the situation facing millions of Gazans, with starvation just around the corner, and given what we know about what the Israeli Government have done so far, may I respectfully ask the Minister to tell us what next?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend, both for her kind words and her commitment to these issues; I can reassure her constituents that she raises them with me regularly. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure I will return to the House next week to talk about the conference and the next steps. I hope that the situation improves: that we see aid reaching Gaza, that we see a ceasefire, and that we can start to talk about these issues in a more measured way in this House, reflecting that the situation is not as urgent as it is today. Until that time, I am sure I will be returning to the House with further updates, as I have been doing.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the sanctions on these two racist and extremist Ministers, but they do not go far enough. They are not going to stop the expansion of settlements or the settler violence, because we know that that expansion is state-funded, state-sanctioned and state-supported. What we need now is recognition of a Palestinian state, and I hope that the Minister will come back to the Chamber next week to inform the House that that has happened. If that is the case, what is the next step once recognition is agreed?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is committed to these issues, although I am sure she would not expect me to speculate at this point about what hypothetical next steps might be. I am sure I will be returning to this House, and I am sure I will continue to discuss these issues with her.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having visited both Israel and Palestine just a few weeks ago. I welcome the Minister’s statement today, as sanctioning these two extremist individuals is exactly the right thing to do; they are enemies of peace, and no two-state solution will ever be achieved while they are in post. It is also clear to me that Prime Minister Netanyahu has come to rely on these two Ministers for his political survival, and the feeling on the ground in Israel among ordinary Israelis—backed up by consistent polling—is that they do not support their Prime Minister and will change their Government at the first opportunity at the next election. Will the Minister set out how the UK Government can not only sanction those who seek to destroy peace, but support those who champion moderation and peacemaking in the region, both in Palestine and in Israel?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for his question and the travel he has recently undertaken. As I am sure he would expect, I will not be drawn on questions about Israel’s democratic process—clearly, their elections are a matter for them—but I can assure my hon. Friend that we do everything that we can to try to support peacemakers on both sides of this conflict to find common cause.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome these sanctions, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his hard work; I thank him and officials for everything they are doing. As other colleagues have done, I also ask him to ensure that we can recognise Palestine at the UN conference, which will be a big moment. The US is a key partner in this work, and my hon. Friend—the Minister, I should say—will know that the US ambassador to Israel has said that the goal of an independent Palestinian state is no longer something it is pursuing. What discussions are we having with the US on that?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is kind, and I am grateful for her words. She is very welcome to call me her hon. Friend. The questions that she raises are key. We discuss these issues with our friends and our allies. Not all our positions are the same, but I will always set out with clarity, both from this Dispatch Box and in all my diplomatic engagements, the position of the UK Government.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions outlined by my hon. Friend today, and I thank him for all the work he has done. I know his commitment to the Palestinian people and the concerns he has, which he shares with us on a regular basis. Action has been required for some time. The up and coming UN conference on a two-state solution is an opportunity to work with allies or alone to recognise the Palestinian state. May I add my voice to that request and ask my hon. Friend: if not then, when?
Mr Falconer
I once again thank my hon. Friend for her kind words and recognise her force of feeling on the question of recognition. As I said earlier, I am sure I will be back in this House and continuing to discuss these issues with her.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I very much welcome the recognition in the statement today of what is going on in the west bank. I raised the issue of settler violence and the suppression of Palestinian rights several weeks ago in the House, following the disgraceful events we saw over Easter with the suppression of worship. I very much welcome the sanctions we have seen today. My hon. Friend talks about a two-state solution, but as other Members have said, we need two states for a two-state solution. What we are seeing from the Israeli Government is a clear attempt to stop there being a viable Palestinian state. What my constituents want and what the Palestinian people want is recognition. We need to do more, and next week is the perfect opportunity for us to recognise a Palestinian state. It is needed now.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend points to his long record, with which I am familiar, of pressing these points. He is right to say that a two-state solution clearly requires two states. It is vital that nobody, not in Israel or anywhere else, forecloses that possibility.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome these sanctions, which need to be seen in the context of £129 million of extra aid, the refunding of UNRWA, sanctions on settlers, the suspension of the arms trade and, importantly, the suspension of trade negotiations. That is the context of the action by this Government. However, the suffering goes on and it is not accidental; it is deliberate. The achievement of these sanctions today is a result of this Government working with other Governments. We know that we achieve more together than we do alone. In that context, and with the summit next week, will the Minister take the message from across this House and from all our constituencies and communities that Britain wants a recognition of the Palestinian state unequivocally, immediately and unconditionally? That is a message from Britain to the summit next week.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend speaks with real force and authority, and I have heard her message clearly.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
This Israeli Government continue to perpetrate horrific and appalling violence against Palestinian people, and that is also against the interests of Israel and Israeli people. We know that Hamas are only interested in death and destruction. I welcome the action today as a sign of willingness to take action against anyone who might be a bar or a block to a two-state solution. The Minister has already heard from Members from all parts of the House and been urged to take specific steps, but will he confirm what options are open to him to support and strengthen the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians who want a peaceful future? What action can he take against anyone who is a bar to a two-state solution in the future?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has rightly focused on the important questions that are at issue, such as how we can maintain the viability of a two-state solution. That is the only route to peaceful harmony, with two states side by side, and it is on that objective that our efforts are focused.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his leadership on this issue.
One of the most regular attenders at my surgeries is a Palestinian woman who has lost both friends and family in this conflict. Her cousin died recently. Each time she comes, it is harder for me to tell her that the Government are doing all that they can to protect the lives and rights of Palestinians. On Saturday she brought a gift, because it was the day after Eid, but she was also angry and tearful. I was ashamed, because I could not tell her that our Government were doing all that they could in this situation.
The Minister has said twice in his responses that delivering aid directly by sea and by air is inefficient, but surely efficiency is not the aim here; saving lives is. Surely inefficient aid is better than no aid. Will the Minister look at this again, with our international partners, to see what aid we can deliver to these people?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend speaks with the painful authority of one who has clearly taken a great deal of time to get to know someone who is facing truly dreadful circumstances in Gaza. I am grateful to all those, on my Benches and beyond, who take part in such engagement and share it with me. I recognise how heavily the responsibilities weigh on us, both constituency Members and, of course, those of us in the Government.
It is not simply inefficiency that makes me counsel the House repeatedly not to focus on air and sea routes. We do keep them under regular review, and we discuss them with our partners, particularly our friends and allies in Jordan, who have conducted important airlifts of aid into the Gaza strip. The reason I counsel the House in the way that I do is that I see so many of these cases, and I am so conscious of the aggregate demands. If we can get aid safely into Gaza in a way that is consistent with humanitarian principles, of course we will do so. I can reassure my hon. Friend and his constituent that we keep that under regular review, but I must be honest with the House and say that it is road routes that will meet the scale and the manner that are required.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on so many important issues in the region, and for finding the time to answer questions from Members in all parts of the House so thoroughly over the past two hours. I also welcome his important announcement about sanctions that draw an essential distinction between the far-right extremist Ministers and the people of Israel as a whole.
We desperately need a ceasefire, we need more aid to get into Gaza to alleviate the horrendous human suffering, and we need the hostages who are still being held to be released. What further steps will the Government take towards achieving all those objectives?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his commitment to issues throughout the region. He has been raising the concerns of his constituents with me since we were both first elected, and I am sure that he will continue to do so. I know that many people in Chipping Barnet are focused not just on the horrors that we have discussed in relation to aid provision and on the violence, but on the circumstances of the hostages, who remain very much in our minds. There is a British mother who is waiting for the safe return of her son. We will not cease our efforts to try to secure the release of those hostages.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions against Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and the coalition that was built to exert maximum pressure. It is very significant, as the Government’s sanctions have been in other contexts around the world relating to human rights, corruption and other issues. Next week’s conference will be critical to, in the Minister’s words,
“defend the vision and viability of two sides living side by side in peace.”
Surely it is time to recognise the state of Palestine and agree a credible timeline with allies to bring this about. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s objective?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has extensive experience of international coalition building and of taking steps against those who support corruption or who, as in this case, breach human rights. I can confirm that we will work with our friends and allies to try to preserve a path to a two-state solution at the conference next week, in the way that he sets out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank both the Minister and Members for their perseverance.
Delegated Legislation
Grenfell Tower Fire: Eighth Anniversary
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
On Saturday, we mark eight years since 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire—eight years of fighting for truth, eight years without justice, and eight years of too often glacial change. This will be the last anniversary before the tower starts to come down, and it will no longer stand as a painful symbol of injustice, greed and impunity on the west London skyline. As the tower starts to be deconstructed, it is even more important that we remember the 72 people who lost their lives, and I am sure that this House will continue to stand united with their families, the survivors and the community until justice is served and systemic change is implemented.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful opening statement on the really important and tragic anniversary that is coming up. Of the 72 people who lost their lives, 18 were children. Some 37 residents were disabled, and 15 of them died. Does my hon. Friend agree that even though the tower will come down in a few years, the trauma, suffering, pain and anguish will live with the people of Grenfell for many years to come?
Joe Powell
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her intervention. I completely agree with her, and the legacy must be the systemic change that I talked about. Many of the people who lost their lives in Grenfell were disabled, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to laying regulations that will mandate personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people, which is a crucial step forward. I know that the Minister has recently taken fire safety into his brief and will look closely at the resources to make sure that such plans are implemented and available for disabled people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue? It is appropriate and right that this House should recall the tragic events of 14 June 2017 and pay tribute to all of the 72 innocent lives that were lost—I think the House is united in thinking of those families. Although the fire happened in 2017, the memories linger long for the families who lost loved ones. The Crown Prosecution Service has indicated that decisions regarding potential charges are not expected until late 2026, which will be almost a decade from when it happened. Does the hon. Member agree that more effort must be made to expedite the process, to ensure that families and friends have justice and the closure that they need to grieve and move on with their lives?
Joe Powell
I thank the hon. Member for expressing his solidarity, and he is right. The finding of the public inquiry that reported in September was devasting: the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable. I know we must respect the criminal investigation and avoid saying anything that jeopardises that process, but on behalf of our community, I simply say to our Government that until there is criminal accountability for those responsible, there will be no justice.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to send my condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of all those who lost their lives eight years ago. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, if justice is to be delivered, the Government need to think very carefully about delivering on the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour?
Joe Powell
I absolutely agree. I applaud the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to bring in the Hillsborough law. At the party conference in September last year, he said that the law is
“for the sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal. The victims of infected blood. Windrush. Grenfell Tower. And all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them.”
Those are the Prime Minister’s words. I agree that we should see that law introduced before we return to Liverpool later this year, and see it accompanied by a national oversight mechanism, so that victims can be independently reassured that inquiry recommendations deliver meaningful change. The sad truth is that we know that if the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been learned, as the coroner intended, it is very likely that the Grenfell tragedy could have been prevented. We cannot allow that to happen again.
For the community of North Kensington, Grenfell will always be in our hearts, and I welcome the hard work of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to select a fitting permanent tribute to the memory of the 72, but our community needs continued support today. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for building safety, the Mayor of London and the many other elected officials for their regular visits to North Kensington and their engagement with the community. They will know that, as the tower is brought down, it is vital that community health services, including mental health services, are maintained, and I hope our local NHS leadership, working with the Government, can make sure that those services remain at least for the period of deconstruction. It is also essential that survivors have the monitoring they need to spot and address long-term health conditions that may arise.
For the residents around the tower, change has also been too long in coming. I regularly meet the residents of the Lancaster West estate, the Silchester estate and many others. On the Lancaster West estate, there is now the prospect of an £85 million gap in the budget to complete the major works that were promised by local and central Government after the fire. Clearly, no project of this scale should be overrunning so dramatically, but that promise to residents must be kept. I call on the Minister to do all he can, working with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to find a solution.
The challenge goes much wider than Lancaster West. Since being elected, I have dealt with thousands of housing cases relating to poor-quality repairs, damp and mould, and a culture of disrespect, especially for social housing tenants.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Eight years on, we remember the deep sorrow, and stand with the survivors and families. Grenfell really did expose failures in building safety and massive social inequality. At the time, I was a teacher, and the deaths of those children were tragic. Now I am an MP, I think it is upon us to do all we can in this place not only to bring those people social justice and the justice they deserve, but to make sure it does not happen again.
Joe Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do applaud the many steps the Government are taking on this issue—for example, on professionalising the housing sector and implementing Awaab’s law on damp and mould. As she states, the truth is that without real change, all of us in this House know that a tragic case such as that of Awaab Ishak could easily happen again. In my constituency, that means that the purpose of the RBKC, Notting Hill Genesis, Peabody, Octavia and others should be to serve the residents, not to make their lives a misery, as too often ends up happening. We have launched a local campaign on safe and healthy homes to try to address the systemic failure in the community around Grenfell.
There will be no justice until the painfully slow process of remediating unsafe buildings across the country is complete.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Last week, the residents of more than 40 flats in Barbourne Works, Worcester, were suddenly evicted after an inspection of unremediated cladding found such severe fire hazards that an immediate prohibition notice was issued. How that was able to happen is a question that must be answered. In the meantime, does the Minister agree that the building managers—in this case, FirstPort—must put residents first, and must not be allowed to let legal disputes or the allocation of blame slow down the urgent work of making the building safe and allowing residents to return home?
Joe Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree—it is staggering that hundreds of thousands of people are still living in buildings like the one he describes, with major fire defects. Members across the House from up and down the country will have constituents affected, with people trapped in unsellable properties, leaseholders on the hook for non-cladding defects, and social housing providers sinking funds into remediation that could be spent on building the new social homes our country desperately needs.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate, and for realising from the first day he was elected that he is the Member for not only Kensington and Bayswater, but Grenfell. It is good that the Government are implementing all 58 recommendations of phase 2 of the inquiry, but does my hon. Friend agree that the four-year timetable is a long time to wait on top of the eight years that have already passed?
Joe Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very valid point. It is good news that the Government have accepted all of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations, and I applaud them for taking the time to come back in detail rather than rushing a response. However, it is absolutely vital that timelines are met. The example of the slow pace of change on remediation is a warning to us all that this matter has to be gripped from the centre if we want to see systemic change.
In another example, shared ownership leaseholders in my constituency at Shaftesbury Place—a property managed by Notting Hill Genesis—saw their building insurance soar by more than 2,000% after a fire safety inspection. That is an increase of £5,000 a year in individual service charges. Those residents contest the report and the recommendations, and I hope that Notting Hill Genesis will work out a reasonable solution, but that is an example of what has to be fixed. The building insurance market may require Government intervention, as we did with flooding.
I know the Minister agrees that we must quicken the pace of remediation, and I urge him to consider what more the Government can do to underwrite the major works now, so that people do not have to wait. The best example of such action would be to widen access to the building safety fund to social housing providers so that they can put more capital into maintaining the condition of their current homes and into building new homes. I know the Government are also focused on giving the Building Safety Regulator the resources it needs so that we can rightly enforce higher standards post Grenfell, as well as accelerating house building and avoiding unnecessary delays.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I hope we will continue to debate this matter in the years to come, and that we can start to talk about the positives that have come out of it in terms of the recommendations and the lives that will be saved and changed. Eight years on, in Scotland—my hon. Friend might be surprised that that is what I am going to talk about—there are 5,500 properties affected by flammable cladding, with 25,000 people living in them. I sense my hon. Friend’s frustration over the pace of remediation in England, and in particular in his own constituency; in Scotland, after eight years, just one building has been remediated. Hopefully in England, the pace is faster than that.
Joe Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those statistics. I think the reality is that the money is there; what we need to do is go building by building and solve the problems. That is where I welcome the Government’s emphasis on devolving some of the decision making, for example, to a London remediation board, which might be something to look at for other parts of the country.
I am sure the House would appreciate an update on the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment on 4 September that all the companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings will stop being awarded Government contracts. As the inquiry said, the companies that made the cladding and insulation products—Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan—behaved with “systematic dishonesty” and
“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”
Florence Eshalomi
One glaring matter to arise from the inquiry was this mention of the corporate greed of some of the developers. It is right, as my hon. Friend says, that the Government will be looking to ban those contracts. Survivors have also asked for prosecutions to come forward. Does he agree that, in addition to the Government banning those companies from receiving other contracts, there should be additional funding for the Met police so that they can swiftly bring to justice those who were responsible for this?
Joe Powell
I know that this is one of the biggest teams that the Met police have in operation, and of course it is right that they keep the funding in place until their work comes to fruition. I also agree with my hon. Friend that we must make sure that taxpayers’ money is no longer going to those companies. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance on that timeline, and that he can reassure us that, under the new system of construction product regulation, the same mistakes will not be made again.
Real change is hard. I have always believed, as Martin Luther King said, that while
“the arc of the moral universe is long, it bends toward justice.”
For that, we need to act now in a way that will protect people in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the introduction of the Hillsborough law, the national oversight mechanism, and the Government’s own reporting on inquiry recommendations and how they will be implemented, will all give people reassurance that this cannot happen again.
Grenfell was the most devastating residential fire since the world war two and the pain can never be erased, but I want to give the final word to one of the young people in our community who gives me hope. Noha Chentouf is 16 and is the new youth mayor for Kensington and Chelsea. I attended an event with her and other young leaders at Tate Britain last night. These were part of her words:
“They trimmed the budget, not the risk
then signed its safety with the flick of a wrist
but it was fine, they saved a few grand
who needs an alarm when profit was the main plan
we’re supposed to give our trust to people who don’t care about our well being
no matter how many complaints they’re gonna fail seeing
exactly what the residents were foreseeing
and they sit in a meeting full of complaints but they’re disagreeing
ended in disaster with many fleeing
but 72 couldn’t make being
alive
a life lost
is a light lost
but that doesn’t mean the fight’s lost.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this opportunity to mark this weekend’s eighth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower and the loss of 72 innocent lives, including, as we have heard, 18 children. Time has not diminished the horror, the pain or the impact of that day—the lives of families and the community changed forever.
My hon. Friend has raised an awful lot of important points, and I hope to be able to cover them all. They are in keeping with his outstanding advocacy for his community. In the building safety space, there is no Member I speak to more than him; we will be together again tomorrow. I want to put it on the record that he pushes and presses me, quite rightly, in the interests of his community, day in, day out.
The most important tribute, though, is to the community, because for eight long years they have campaigned and fought for truth, justice and change. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are resolute in listening to them. We want to ensure that the bereaved, survivors, next of kin and resident voices are heard, including at the heart of Government. We will continue to work until the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire have changed the system that led to that tragedy.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his words and for attending the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to give an update on behalf of the Government. The Committee heard from Grenfell United and survivors that for far too long social housing tenants were being ignored and dismissed. There is no recommendation or terms of reference in the inquiry on race or discrimination, but does he agree that the discrimination of disabled and black and minority ethnic residents was a contributing factor in the tenants being failed?
Alex Norris
It has always been clear to me, in my conversations with the bereaved and survivors and with families and next of kin, that the demographics in terms of race speak their own story, and that is similarly the case with disability. That is why it has informed our policy in PEEPs, which I will talk to shortly, as well as our entire agenda around residents’ voice in social housing, which I will also come on to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and I were in the very early stages of our time as Members of Parliament in 2017, and I know exactly where I was sitting during the discussions we had then—I can see it but 10 metres from here. As I have said in every debate of this kind since I have been a Minister, if we had said to ourselves then that in eight years we would have achieved as little as we have, we would have thought that a significant failure. It is a significant failure, and I want those watching this debate to know that we understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said that the progress is glacial. That is exactly right, and it behoves us to change that with real intent. That is my commitment and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment.
Last September, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the inquiry’s final report. It is a hugely important staging post and driver for action. The findings were clear: the system failed at every point—public, private, local, national. Families were failed. Residents’ voices were ignored. Dishonest practices were propagated. The Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British state for its part in the failures that led to entirely avoidable deaths. I want to repeat the Prime Minister’s words: it should never have happened.
We published our response to the inquiry in February. We accepted the findings and committed to delivering on all 58 recommendations and to going further through a broader approach to reform, including with regard to construction products. Last month we published our progress report on delivery, and we will continue to report on a quarterly basis. The next progress report in September will be a very big one, because we will also publish our full implementation plan, setting out how we will deliver the recommendations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater that the legacy must be system change.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) says about it being a long time, and I know from speaking to the bereaved and survivors that they are frustrated that some of the recommendations will take time. The commitment I will make from this Dispatch Box is that nothing will take a day longer than it has to take. We are working with urgency and intent, and we will be very transparent as we do.
Florence Eshalomi
I appreciate that the Minister is working around the clock on this issue. I know that it is very important to him and that there are big challenges in his portfolio. Does he agree that because there are so many competing demands on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including looking at building safety and the Minister’s new responsibility on fire safety, a clear way to ensure that the Government continue to keep focus on this issue is through a national oversight mechanism? It will help the Government ensure that there are clear deadlines and timeframes for the recommendations, which the Government have rightly accepted.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention; she pre-empts my next point. Before I move on, I want to recognise the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who said that he hopes that we will have opportunities to debate our progress. We have committed to an annual debate in this place about our progress, and we will have those debates until we have delivered on the recommendations.
Turning to oversight, we are committed to transparency, accountability and scrutiny. It is entirely right that the community, having been failed in the ways that they have, want to see very clear accountability. We will record all recommendations made by public inquiries on gov.uk by next summer, backdating it to 2024, so there will be public tracking of inquiry recommendations. That meets the commitment under the Grenfell Tower inquiry review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green knows that I will refer to the points I made at her Select Committee. The Cabinet Office, as part of its ongoing inquiry work, is exploring how to improve scrutiny and accountability for all inquiry responses, so that actions can be taken more quickly. I would not want to run ahead of that. To address the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), we remain fully committed to a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply.
I turn now to justice, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater spoke with real power about. When I talk to the bereaved and survivors about whatever the matter of the day is, they always say to me, “Yes, Alex, but that is not justice yet.” I know that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged last year that the inquiry final report, while exposing the truth, does not yet bring the justice that families rightly deserve. Again, I am aware of the frustration in this area and the strong feeling that accountability has yet to be achieved. We continue to support the independent Metropolitan Police Service as it conducts its investigations—we know how important that is.
I want to touch on the tower itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said, this will be a poignant anniversary because it will be the final one with the tower as it is. We will continue to work closely with bereaved families, survivors, next of kin and residents as we prepare work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower, starting in the autumn. They will remain at the heart of this work. As we look to the future, we are committed to supporting the independent memorial commission in its important work to create a fitting and lasting memorial determined by the community.
The Deputy Prime Minister and I will continue—as we have throughout—to meet with anyone who wants that, to listen and act on the issues we are raising and, more importantly, the issues they raise with us. I know that there is a lot of anxiety that as the tower is carefully taken down, the moment for the Grenfell community will be forgotten. Again, I want to give an assurance on that. I know that, with these colleagues behind me, that will never be the case, but for the Government it will not be either.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said, this is a moment of trauma for individuals, so it is crucial that really good mental health support is available for the community. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), are raising that with the integrated care board to ensure that the right mental health services are there, the right screening facilities are there, and there is the right screening for children and young people, which is such a community priority. I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in that venture to ensure that those healthcare services are there.
It is clear and accepted that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also failed. The leadership has committed to change and has taken important steps forward, but we still hear from too many residents that they are not getting the experience they should. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have met the leader of the council, and we have challenged the council to become an exemplar as a fitting legacy for this tragedy. We will continue to hold the council to account until residents feel and see the change.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Lancaster West estate. I am conscious that even before that terrible night in 2017, residents there had lived on a building site for a very long time. They say that to me every time I see them. The council has a huge gap in funding—he said it is £85 million and I would say £84 million, but it is a significant gap either way. I will continue to work with him, the residents’ association—I know that its able chair, Mushtaq Lasharie, will press us at every opportunity, as he rightly always does—and the council on how to take the issue forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned PEEPs, which has recently become a responsibility of mine and of MHCLG. As he said, we are looking to lay secondary legislation as soon as we can. I am committed to working with disability groups to ensure that the guidance and the toolkit in its implementation is as good as possible. We have committed funding this year, and any future funding will be part of the spending review process, which is coming to its peroration tomorrow.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s points on the pace of remediation. I inherited a trajectory that took us into the 2040s. Our remediation acceleration plan—certainly for buildings above 18 metres with unsafe cladding in a Government scheme—concertinas that to 2029. We will be updating our remediation acceleration plan this summer to push even further on what we can do to get quicker remediation.
My hon. Friend mentioned the challenges around social housing and the impact that has not just on remediation but on building. Those points were very well made. We will announce our longer-term plans in that space shortly.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way. One of the issues constantly raised by registered social landlords is that they cannot apply for the building safety remediation. Will we see an update on that in the coming weeks, and perhaps in announcements tomorrow?
Alex Norris
On a point of fact, RSLs can access the building safety fund and cladding safety scheme, but I have heard from them that the circumstances in which they can do that—basically, declaring a degree of financial distress—are difficult for them, and I understand that. I cannot be drawn on any events upcoming; all I will say is that my hon. Friend’s suggestion has an awful lot of merit.
Kim Johnson
I want to recognise that so many lease-holders in my Liverpool Riverside constituency have been affected by the delay in remediation. Their lives are on hold because they cannot sell their flats and they cannot move forward. We need to look at what we can do to try to support those leaseholders.
Alex Norris
I totally agree. Those trapped are living in intolerable circumstances. As part of the update to the remediation acceleration plan, we will have more about what we can do to provide them with relief.
In conclusion, this has been a hugely important debate. We will have many more, and we will work our hardest to deliver justice for the community as quickly as we possibly can.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The regulations are enabled by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The IPA provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by our intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. It is designed to protect the public by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent and prosecute crime. In this context, it also safeguards the privacy of individuals by setting stringent controls over the way IPA powers are authorised and overseen.
Part 3 of the IPA sets out the public authorities that are permitted to acquire communications data, or CD, and under what statutory purposes CD may be acquired. CD reveals the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content, such as what was written or said. CD is routinely used as evidence in upwards of 95% of serious organised crime investigations and has played a significant role in every major terrorism investigation over the past decade. The data is vital evidence in criminal and national security investigations.
The relevant public authorities that are permitted to use CD powers, and that therefore have the authority to make a request to compel CD from telecommunication and postal operators, are listed in schedule 4 to the IPA. As technology and society’s use of technology change, it is important that we adapt and equip public authorities with the capability to prevent criminals from exploiting technology features, hiding their identity, evading detection and putting the public at risk.
The regulations will update the public authorities listed in schedule 4. Updating the schedule ensures that only those public authorities that need powers to acquire CD remain listed in the schedule. In addition to this safeguard, the communications data code of practice provides guidance on the processes associated with making an application to use the power, as well as the safeguards and oversight arrangements that will ensure that the power is used in the intended manner: in a targeted way, and only when necessary and proportionate. The CD code has statutory force, and individuals exercising functions to which the code relates must have regard to it.
Eleven entries will be added to the schedule. The entries relate to the Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Transport; the Security Industry Authority, an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Home Office; NHS Counter Fraud Service Wales, an organisation hosted by the Velindre University NHS Trust; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team in the Department for Business and Trade; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; and the counter fraud and investigation team in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The following ambulance services will also be added: the South East Coast ambulance service, the North West ambulance service, the West Midlands ambulance service and the East Midlands ambulance service.
Except for the four ambulance trusts I have just mentioned, the public authorities to be added are entirely new entries to the schedule and CD powers. Following their addition to schedule 4, the seven newly added public authorities will be able to apply for an independently approved authorisation via the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office that, if granted, can be used to compel telecommunications and postal operators to disclose CD for the purposes set out within their designation in schedule 4. They will not be given the power to internally authorise CD applications.
The four entries relating to the English ambulance trusts were previously designated in schedule 4 under the umbrella definition of
“An ambulance trust in England”,
which included a total of 10 English ambulance trusts. That definition has been removed and replaced with the four individual entries. Therefore, six English ambulance trusts will be removed from schedule 4 having confirmed with the Home Office that they no longer require CD powers. The four English ambulance trusts remaining in the schedule are the South East Coast ambulance service, the North West ambulance service, the West Midlands ambulance service and the East Midlands ambulance service. Those trusts will retain their CD powers, including the ability to authorise internal applications.
The Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust and the Scottish ambulance service board will also be removed from schedule 4, having confirmed with the Home Office that they no longer need to retain their CD powers. The regulations make no change to the Northern Ireland ambulance service or its designation in the schedule.
The regulations will amend the Insolvency Service’s designation to include the Department for Business and Trade, following machinery of Government changes. There is no change to the Insolvency Service’s ability to acquire CD for the purposes already listed in schedule 4. As part of our effort to ensure the continued operational utility of the IPA, the regulations will make necessary and vital changes to schedule 4.
To conclude, the changes will enable various public authorities to carry out and fulfil their essential statutory duties, including safeguarding the public from national security threats and criminal activity. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for his comments.
In a world of instant communication, it should come as no surprise that tackling crime often requires public officials to obtain communications data. That is obviously true of cases where it is necessary to keep the public safe, but increasingly for cases of fraud, intellectual property theft and similar crimes. The Investigatory Powers Act, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, clarified existing powers in that space and established new ones. It is right that future Governments expand on those powers to ensure that public bodies can enforce the law and stay up to date with the latest changes in how and where criminals operate. We therefore support the regulations before the Committee.
We also support the useful update of organisations that are choosing not to access those powers any more, including my local South Western ambulance service. We must ensure that mechanisms are in place to review and qualify the use of such powers where public safety conflicts with individual privacy. It is right that there are clear guidelines for when the powers can be used and for what purpose.
Given that the regulations operate within the framework set out by the Act, we do not need to revisit that debate in detail. I am confident that the safeguards and guardrails established by that Act are adequate, allowing public officials to strike the right balance between keeping us safe and protecting our freedoms. That balance always requires careful calibration, but today’s regulations do not pose a risk to it.
Although public authorities are granted enforcement powers in good faith, they do not always use them effectively for a wide range of reasons. It is vital to take steps to mitigate that, because if the powers are used incorrectly, public bodies not only risk allowing criminals to escape justice but risk damaging the case for using them in the first place.
With that in mind, what consultations have the Minister and his Department undertaken with the public authorities empowered by the regulations? Do those authorities have adequate resources and legal advice on the use of the new powers? What steps is his Department taking to assess the extension of similar powers to other public authorities in future?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
As always, Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. We are very supportive of the approach taken in the regulations, but will the Minister briefly explain what roles or tasks the ambulance services that are retaining the powers are undertaking that those that have confirmed that they do not require them are not? Why would some be performing those tasks and others not? I think that would help to explain why this change—and this specificity—is required.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you for the first time, Dr Murrison. I do not want to detain the Committee too long, but I have a couple of questions.
Obviously, I am familiar with this legislation, having served at the Home Office. We should be under no illusion: the powers that we are extending today are actually very intrusive. While the Minister is absolutely right, for example, that there is not a single murder in this country that is not solved without this kind of data, the extension of these powers to the organisations named in the regulations is broadly what was predicted by critics of the Investigatory Powers Bill when it was introduced in 2016. Slowly but surely, they said, everybody would grab these powers just in case they needed them. As Members of Parliament, whose job it is to balance the rights of the public against the Government’s ability to intrude on them, we need to think carefully about whether what we are doing today is proportionate.
My first question, which troubled me when I was at the Home Office, is about the internal conflict for the commissioner. The way that the Act is drawn, the commissioner both authorises and supervises. Although the commissioner is responsible to Parliament and produces reports to it, I am not entirely sure that the commissioner should effectively be both judge and jury on whether an organisation should have authorisation and therefore, presumably, whether its internal structures for controlling and managing the data are satisfactory. One would have thought that in normal circumstances there would be some separate authorisation system that was then assessed to be adequate by the commissioner. That conflict causes me some problems, and I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on it.
My second question is about the use case, which was raised by both the hon. Member for South West Devon and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. It seems odd that some ambulance services are saying, “We don’t actually need this,” but others are saying that they do. What is special about the East Midlands ambulance service that means it needs to retain this power? It would be interesting to understand the use cases for all these organisations. For example, why is location and time data for telephone communications useful to the Intellectual Property Office? I do not quite see it myself. I might be missing something—I am not an expert in intellectual property—but it would be helpful to see the use case that I presume it made to the commissioner for the authorisation. Has that been published?
The guidance states that there has been a consultation with the commissioner. I presume that the consultation has been published, although I have not been able to find it. If it has, does it contain information about how the commissioner tested the use cases? Has the commissioner tested the proportionality—that is what we are making a judgment on here—of the case made by each organisation? Are there real examples that Members can look at and say, for example, “Okay, we understand that East Midlands needs it because it is particularly prone to fraud in which this kind of data is useful for prevention and detection, but the other ambulance services aren’t”?
Similarly, for the other organisations, I can see why location data would matter for DVSA, but I have never heard of the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team. I do not know what it does; I would love to know. It would be great if either now or afterwards we could get some information on what it feels like in the real world so Members can make a proportionate judgment, albeit after the fact.
On authorisation levels, the Minister said that there is no requirement because the organisations are all going for authorisation direct from the IPC, but in the regulations, in the column that is amended in the legislation, it gives authorisations at particular levels. For example, it states that in the East Midlands ambulance service, a duty manager of an ambulance control room is able to authorise a request. In the Department for Business and Trade,
“so far as relating to the Insolvency Service”
it specifies:
“Grade 7 in the Investigation and Enforcement Services Directorate”.
Will the Minister explain why he is happy with that level of internal organisation? To me it feels a little low that a request so intrusive and, in certain circumstances, speculative could be authorised by a no doubt hard-working and dedicated duty manager of an ambulance control room, rather than somebody who we might imagine was part of a senior management team of an organisation who is able to take a strategic view about whether a request was proportionate.
As I say, I understand the need for the legislation. It was introduced in 2016 in my first year in the House; I was not the Minister at the time, but obviously I voted for it. It seemed to be the right kind of construct, but we always knew the day would come when we expanded it. The undertaking given then by the Government was that MPs would exercise their judgment about the proportionality of these organisations beyond the police, counter-terrorism and normal enforcement organisations that were really the primary targets of the legislation.
Dan Jarvis
First, let me thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for her remarks, which are much appreciated, not least for the constructive tone in which she delivered them. It is important that we ensure there is broad political support for the investigatory powers regime. These are vital powers for our intelligence services, law enforcement and, as we have heard, a number of public authorities. It is absolutely right that we debate these matters and that they are subject to scrutiny in this House. On that basis, I welcome the challenge from Opposition Members, because it behoves the Government to justify the continued need of these powers in the way that we seek. I will say a little more about that in a moment.
The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about the use of powers and consultation with public authorities. She asked for an assurance that adequate, appropriate resources are in place to support the use of the powers, which I can give her. I also say to her that the Home Office, as I am sure was the case under the previous Government, takes such matters incredibly seriously, both in terms of ministerial oversight and the work of officials in the Department. We look very carefully to ensure that the use of powers is necessary, proportionate and appropriate. I assure her that there has been an appropriate level of consultation leading up to these regulations. I am grateful for her broad support of the regulations and of the investigatory powers regime more generally.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam specifically asked about ambulance trusts. I can tell him that the six English ambulance trusts being removed, as well as the Scottish ambulance service and the Welsh ambulance service, made a direct request to the Home Office for removal from schedule 4. For the purposes of clarity, the remaining four English ambulance trusts—the West Midlands ambulance service, the South East Coast ambulance service, the North West ambulance service and the East Midlands ambulance service—and the Northern Ireland ambulance service have not requested removal and therefore remain listed in schedule 4. Only one ambulance trust, the West Midlands ambulance service, responded to object to its removal. I assure him that the Government will continue to review the necessity of communications data powers for all public authorities listed in schedule 4, including these ambulance trusts, to ensure that their inclusion in the schedule remains justified. Basically, we do not want organisations to be listed in the schedule if they are not using the powers.
Kit Malthouse
I guess what we are asking is why these four did not respond. Was there communication with them to say, “We haven’t heard from you. Should you have responded? Have you missed it? Is it in the pile?” Six have made the case that they have never used the powers. Four have not responded—I would guess they have not used the powers either but just did not respond. How far did the investigation go? From our point of view, it would be interesting to understand why Birmingham objected. What is the real-life case for which an ambulance service needs this data? Make it live for us, Minister. Give us a story that we can tell our constituents.
Dan Jarvis
I genuinely welcome the challenge offered by the right hon. Gentleman; he is right to press us on this. I assure him that there are specific operational reasons why ambulance trusts may wish to retain and use this power. One reason why we have proceeded in the way that we have is that removing public authorities that did not respond to the Home Office’s correspondence from schedule 4 could risk operational errors—for example, ambulance trusts, unaware that they were no longer listed in schedule 4, could continue to make requests for CD without the necessary authorisation. I broadly agree with his points, and I accept that there is a case for further tidying up. I assure the Committee that we will continue to do that, and ensure that the right public authorities, which are using the powers for genuine operational reasons, are listed in schedule 4. I assure him that there are genuine operational reasons—if he will forgive me, I will not go into specific detail—why an ambulance trust might want to exercise these powers. However, I accept his basic point that we will need to look carefully at this and do any further tidying up of the four.
Luke Taylor
Does the Minister agree that there is, if not a red flag, potentially a question about why only one ambulance service made a specific request to retain the powers, while others did not respond, or potentially do not have the correct procedures in place to deal with requests of this type and manage the data? That would be a concern for me. Are those that specifically requested to be removed not utilising a power that may well improve their operations, and their ability to serve their residents?
Dan Jarvis
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member, because it is an entirely fair challenge. I assure the Committee that the Home Office works very closely with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office—I will say a little more about that in response to the questions of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire—to ensure that all the entries in schedule 4 remain up to date and reflect those with a requirement or compelling need for the use of CD powers. The consideration of a public authority’s addition to the schedule is entirely based on the operational case, its proposed approach to compliance and its understanding of the appropriate, necessary and proportionate use of the powers. We give these matters very careful consideration, but I will happily reflect further on the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam with regard to the single ambulance trust.
Let me turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire about proportionality, which he was right to raise. He will know from his time in government, both as deputy mayor and as a Home Office Minister, about the vital requirement for these powers. As I said in my introductory remarks, communications data is routinely used as evidence in upwards of 95%—that is probably a conservative estimate—of serious organised crime investigations. That is a key statistic. That data has played a significant role in every major terrorism investigation over the past decade. It provides vital evidence in both criminal and national security investigations. At the same time, he is right to make the point that we need to be proportionate in its use: strong powers, yes, but with an absolute requirement for strong oversight as well. I completely understand and am genuinely pleased about what he has said. It is not that often that we get the opportunity to debate these niche but important matters about the role of the commissioner.
The commissioner, Sir Brian Leveson, does an outstanding job. Anyone who knows him is aware that he is, by any metric, an extraordinary character and a true public servant with a wisdom and integrity that are a huge credit to the work that he does. He is incredibly well supported by an excellent team who work hard to ensure appropriate levels of oversight for this regime. We would not be able to operate without the independent oversight that he and his team have carried out for the previous Government and this Government, and will carry out for the next one, without fear or favour. All that said, it continues to be right, of course, for us to look carefully at the structural arrangements in place and, as a still relatively new Government, to satisfy ourselves that they are fit for purpose, that they are appropriately resourced and that the right people are doing what is a difficult and important job.
I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the Home Secretary and I personally take these matters very seriously. I meet Sir Brian and his team regularly, who look carefully at the work we do. But if the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member has any thoughts about how the regime could be tweaked or improved, I will happily have that conversation.
Kit Malthouse
I do not want to cast any aspersions on Brian Leveson, whom I know well—not least because he was educated at the same school as I was; obviously, a little before.
The challenge is about proportionality. We all acknowledge the importance of such evidence if we are dealing with serious criminality, violence or terrorism—as I said, 100% of murders are solved with the use of this data—but I guess my concern starts when the powers stray into matters that are primarily commercial, for example. The Intellectual Property Office deals essentially with commercial matters—disputes about patents and intellectual property, and possible fraud thereabouts. It is unlikely that anybody will go to prison as a result of the operation of the Intellectual Property Office, although they might pay a big fine or compensation to somebody.
I guess the issue is where the line is between criminality, violence, terrorism or serious and organised crime, and more commercial matters. Take the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency: it may be a crime under DVSA regulations to do x, y or z, but the British public would not put that up there with terrorism. That is the proportionality that we are asking about: whether we are straying too far. The Government obviously do not think so, which is why they have put the regulations forward, but I ask the Minister whether he has satisfied himself about the point I am making.
I am sorry to make this slightly long intervention, but my prediction is that we will be here again in 12 months’ time. Suddenly all sorts of organisations will be saying, “D’you know what? It might be useful to have a bit of a fishing trip—we just don’t know. Let’s see if we can persuade the Minister whether, once he has put the Intellectual Property Office in, we can be in as well.”
Dan Jarvis
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because he raises some important points. Some of us were here a week ago debating a not dissimilar statutory instrument. I had a very constructive debate with a former security Minister on his Benches—the right hon. Gentleman knows him well—and we repeated some of the debate that we had during the passage of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 in the previous Parliament. We debated precisely the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
I do not disagree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but let me seek to give him a bit of assurance. First, we definitely do not do fishing exercises—as the Minister, I would not consider that remotely appropriate—and we do not do mission creep either. We need to be really careful to ensure that all the public authorities listed have an absolute operational requirement to use the powers.
The right hon. Gentleman’s raised the Intellectual Property Office in his earlier remarks, and helpfully did so again just a moment ago. The Intellectual Property Office engages with law enforcement agencies and other Departments to tackle intellectual property crimes, including those relating to patents, designs, trademarks and copyright, via a multi-agency approach. It also supports investigations to tackle serious organised crime, such as countering counterfeit goods, illegal streaming and associated money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I take his point, but I hope that in the specific example he raises I am able to assure him that the powers vested in that organisation are necessary and proportionate. I further assure him that I will continue to look very carefully at these matters to satisfy myself that all the public authorities listed have that operational requirement.
Finally, I thought the right hon. Gentleman made a reasonable point about authorisation. I assure him that very careful consideration is given to matters relating to authorisation—I am sure he remembers that from his time in the Department. He raised an interesting example, but I assure him that, as a Minister, I have looked very carefully at the details of this, as have officials. We will satisfy ourselves that matters relating to authorisation are designated at an appropriately senior level. He is right to raise that point. I assure him that the regulations are appropriate, but I will look carefully at them to further satisfy myself that that is the case.
I hope that I have responded reasonably to all the questions, and that I have illustrated the importance of the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025.
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are sitting in public and our proceedings are being broadcast. I remind hon. Members to switch off or silence their electronic devices. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Before we move on to line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope to take these initial matters formally, without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 10 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 June;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 June;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 June;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 June;
2. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 24; Schedule 2; Clauses 25 to 41; Schedule 3; Clauses 42 to 54; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 55 to 59; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 26 June. —(Stephen Kinnock.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Stephen Kinnock.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The purpose of the grouping is to avoid undue repetition in debate.
I remind the Committee that the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group is called first. In a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members will then be free to indicate, by bobbing, whether they wish to speak. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses or schedules, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment, new clause or schedule to a vote, they will need to let me know. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debate on the relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation was helpful.
Clause 1
Principles to inform decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
I thank the many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading. It is clear that in this place, as in the other place, the Bill will proceed in a collaborative and constructive spirit, with the single motivation of getting the reforms right. On Second Reading, we heard numerous powerful accounts from hon. Members arising from their personal experience of supporting family, friends or constituents with a serious mental illness, a learning disability or neurodiversity, or drawing on their own experiences to underscore the importance of the need for reform. I was heartened to hear from so many Members who set out the positive impact of the changes that the Bill will introduce, particularly the vital changes to ensure that patients’ voices are heard and that—as we would expect in any modern mental health service—the patient is at the heart of all decision making.
In our manifesto, we committed to modernising the Mental Health Act 1983 to give patients greater choice, autonomy, enhanced rights and support, and to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect throughout their treatment. I am proud that we included this critical Bill in our first King’s Speech, and I look forward to constructive engagement with the Committee on this important legislation.
I will also take a moment to thank the Liberal Democrat Member, the name of whose constituency escapes me, and other MPs who have shone a light on the experiences of Fiona Laskaris and other families. No one should lose a child in that way. I thank Fiona for meeting me and I commend her tireless campaign efforts. The engagement that my officials and I have had with Fiona and the hon. Member has been incredibly valuable. Unfortunately, the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to address those concerns, but I have committed to continuing engagement with Fiona and the hon. Member to further explore those issues and how we might tackle them.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) has been pushing forward on that very emotive and difficult issue of capacity; he brought it up in his maiden speech and has been campaigning tirelessly on it. My hon. Friend said that the Minister was very constructive in his engagement on the issue, which we very much appreciate. Even though we cannot include it in the Bill, we look forward to working on it.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, not least because it gave me the opportunity to remember the constituency of the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley—please pass my apologies to him for forgetting that important point. He has been a tireless campaigner and I believe that we can find a way forward; this Bill is just not the correct vehicle for it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I also want to assess the amendment that could potentially have been tabled. The Opposition were struggling to see how it would fit in, and it looks as if there is a crossover with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Can the Minister set out why he felt that it did not quite fit into this area and how it could be taken forward, so that with cross-party work outside this Committee we can see how we can make it happen?
Stephen Kinnock
There were a number of technical and drafting issues. The Public Bill Office ruled that the amendment, as drafted, was out of scope. One of the key concerns was about the unintended consequences of the relationship between physical disability and mental disorder. The drafting of the amendment could have caused confusion, because it could have started to bring physical disability into the scope of the Bill, which is clearly not what it is about. There were a number of technical and drafting issues, but I do not think that they are insurmountable. We can get to where we need to be, just not through a legislative vehicle.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I support the comments of the Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester on the issue. On a cross-party basis, I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has taken a close interest. Could he also be included in those discussions?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, absolutely. We had a very constructive meeting with the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash, along with the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, and we are certainly open to working with that team of people, who are clearly focused on getting the results that we all want to see.
Clause 1 will make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to include, in the statement of principles in the Mental Health Act code of practice, the wording of the four principles identified by the independent review. Those principles are choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit and the person as an individual. This will ensure that the review’s principles underpin the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983 and are considered when making decisions related to care, support or the treatment provided to patients under the Act.
Embedding the principles in day-to-day practice will help to drive the culture change envisaged by the independent review. We are including the principles in the Act so that they govern the content of the code of practice and can changed only by Parliament. The Government are firmly supportive of the four principles, which were co-designed with service users during the independent review. They have informed every decision made in developing the Bill. We have embedded the principles in measures throughout the Bill, such as via the inclusion of therapeutic benefit in the detention criteria and several measures to improve patient choice and autonomy, including new treatment safeguards, introducing advance choice documents and the right to choose a nominated person.
I turn to clause 2. The code of practice for Wales already includes a statement of principles, although it is not a statutory requirement under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for Welsh Ministers to do so. Clause 2 will amend section 118 to extend subsection (2A) to Wales, along with the new subsection (2B) inserted by clause 1. To do so, clause 2 will also make amendments elsewhere in section 118 to clarify the application of each subsection, which will be to the Secretary of State in relation to England, to Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, by virtue of the transfer of devolved functions, or to both.
The extent of the Mental Health Act is England and Wales, and there are separate codes of practice for England and Wales. Both codes of practice currently include a statement of principles, although the principles themselves vary slightly. Clause 2 will place a statutory requirement on Welsh Ministers to include the wording of the four principles identified by the independent review in the statement of principles when preparing the Mental Health Act code of practice for Wales.
As in clause 1, we are putting these principles explicitly in the Act so that they govern the content of the code of practice and so that they cannot be changed except by Parliament, or by the Senedd in respect of Wales. The Welsh code is already required to undergo scrutiny by Senedd Cymru, but clause 2 will also update the position in relation to the Senedd Cymru scrutiny procedure for the Welsh code. I commend clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.
Dr Evans
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for his collaborative tone on some of the difficult amendments that we have discussed.
I will open where the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), left us on Second Reading. As he rightly emphasised, the importance of updating the Mental Health Act cannot be overstated. I fully share his view that it was right to take the necessary time to get this legislation right. The cross-party commitment to reform in this area, spanning both previous and current Governments, reflects a shared recognition of the urgent need to modernise our approach to mental health, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.
I welcome the Bill’s focus on enhancing patients’ voice and autonomy, including through the expansion of independent advocacy and the shift away from using police and prison cells as a place of safety. Those are positive and overdue steps. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend outlined, the Opposition’s role is to engage rigorously and constructively with the details of the Bill. Over the next few weeks, I look forward to working with colleagues on the Committee to ensure that, for example, the principle of patient choice is embedded not only in policy but in practice, such as through the use of advance choice documents.
We will continue to scrutinise the Bill in good faith, proposing improvements where needed, with the aim of delivering the strongest possible protections and outcomes for patients, their families and the community. How we begin a conversation often determines whether it becomes dialogue or dispute, so I hope that the Committee can take a constructive and productive look at what lies ahead of us.
I support clause 1, which will rightly update section 118(2B) of the Mental Health Act 1983 and embed a refreshed code of practice at the very heart of the mental health framework. This is not merely a procedural amendment; it is a statement of values, placing humanity, dignity and recovery at the centre of how we treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are profoundly affected by mental health legislation. It is vital that the framework guiding professionals be clear, principled and rooted in respect for individuals.
Why do we need these changes? For too long, the Mental Health Act has been criticised as outdated and insufficiently centred on patient autonomy and dignity. Concerns raised by successive independent reviews, clinicians and, crucially, by people with lived experience have pointed to inconsistencies in how decisions are made, which can often result in over-restriction, lack of patient involvement and insufficient therapeutic focus.
The independent review of the Mental Health Act, which was published in 2018, made a landmark contribution by recommending the adoption of the four core principles in front of us today: choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit and recognition of the person as an individual. These principles are designed to shift the culture and practice towards one that respects autonomy while safeguarding wellbeing and public safety.
The historical context is that the Mental Health Act has undergone several amendments since its introduction—notably, in 2007, updates were made to some of the detention criteria and safeguards—but it was clear that the Act remained predominantly paternalistic. The 2018 independent review was a comprehensive, evidence-based re-examination of the entire Act, informed by extensive consultation, including with patients, families and clinicians. It concluded that embedding the principles formally into the law and code of practice was essential to modernise and humanise mental health law.
The four key principles—choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit and the person as an individual to be treated with dignity—are not abstract ideals. They are the foundations of compassionate, lawful and effective care. They echo the spirit of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and signal a move away from paternalism and towards genuine co-production of care plans. Involvement ensures that decisions are not made about patients without them. The principle of choice and autonomy reminds us that the mental illness must not be a justification for blanket restrictions. The principle of least restriction challenges us to find community-based alternatives before defaulting to detention. Therapeutic benefit ensures that care is not custodial, but meaningful healing. These principles are what most of us would hope to see for our own family.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Does he agree that the Wessely independent review setting out these four principles gets right the balance that even though people may need to be detained, they should not lose their personhood and control, and that embedding these principles in this updated Bill will ensure that those rights are enshrined in law?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The key part is about trying to change not only the legislative framework, but the culture around clinicians and society as a whole. We saw that impact in 1983, we saw it in 2005 with the update on capacity, and we saw it in 2007. Now is the right time to look again at this, and it is well overdue.
I am glad that it has taken a while to ensure that the Bill has been thoroughly thought out. As we heard in the House of Lords debate, this is exactly the kind of framework that we need to make sure that society moves forward in a collaborative way that puts the patient at the centre, but also protects the wider community. Given some of the high-profile incidents that we have seen, we must also make sure that relatives, the community and the wider public at large are all protected.
As the Minister has rightly highlighted, the core principles must be the default for everyone. Clause 1 therefore represents an important step forward: by requiring the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers to include the four principles explicitly in the code of practice and by making it a legal duty for decision makers to have regard to them, the clause will strengthen the ethical foundation of mental health law. However, we must be honest about the challenges. The success of the principles depends on the culture, not just the codification. Training, supervision and leadership across clinical settings will be essential to bringing the values off the page and into practice.
These principles will also require resource backing. We cannot call for the least restrictive or most therapeutic interventions while community mental health services remain as they are. A plan for investment and a timeline for delivery will be imperative, or else we risk embedding principles we cannot fulfil. Members on both sides of the House understand that. I know that the Minister will have to think carefully about setting out a timetable, but it is key.
We must also guard against tokenism. We must guard against lofty principles being left unenforced and becoming rhetorical wallpaper. If we are to legislate for these values, we must look for accountability, with regular auditing, patient feedback mechanisms and a duty on the provider to report on how the principles are being upheld. Those are all areas that His Majesty’s Opposition will scrutinise.
To that end, I wish to raise several important questions for the Government and the Committee to consider. The first is about enforcement and accountability. How will the Government ensure that decision makers truly have regard to the principles in practice, and is there a robust mechanism for monitoring compliance and addressing breaches?
The second question is about balancing conflicts. In some cases, principles may conflict: for example, the imperative to respect patient autonomy may clash with the need to impose restrictions for safety. How does the code intend to guide practitioners to navigate these difficult trade-offs?
The third question is about care and interested parties. Although the clause highlights patient involvement, what explicit protections and roles will be afforded to carers and other interested parties, and how will their sometimes divergent perspectives be balanced?
The fourth question is about training and resources. Embedding the principles requires more than words on paper. What investments are planned to equip practitioners with the skills and understanding necessary to apply these principles sensitively and consistently?
The fifth question is about the timeline and consultation. The explanatory notes mention that the code must be consulted on and presented for scrutiny. What is the proposed timeline for that process, and how will people with lived experience continue to be involved?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. I will answer to the best of my ability, but I may need to write to him on one or two points.
On enforcement and accountability, the code of practice is underpinned by the Bill and is therefore legally binding. Any divergence from the code of practice would need an extremely strong justification. That could well end up being a matter for the courts. I think that we will see a fairly strong line of sight from this primary legislation through to the code of practice and its implementation. Enforcement and accountability will be provided on that basis.
On balancing conflict, we will consult on the code of practice. Consultation will launch as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. That will be an important part of getting to the nub of some of these nuanced issues. It is quite difficult to put all that down in a document—a lot is about the culture, as the shadow Minister said—so we need an approach that has sufficient flexibility, but with clear outcomes and accountability. The consultation process will help us to get that.
Dr Evans
I agree with the Minister. Does the Department have a rough idea of the timetable for putting in place the code of practice? How long will the consultation need to take? When will it be implemented? How many rounds go with it? How wide is it to be—will it consult across England and Wales, or just in England?
Stephen Kinnock
We expect the entire process to take about a year from Royal Assent. My colleague Baroness Merron made a strong commitment from the Dispatch Box in the other place that we will present a written ministerial statement to the House every year. That will be the opportunity for us to report on the progress of all the measures that need to be implemented. A pressing task is to build the community capability required in this shift from hospital to community, which is very much part of the Bill and of our broader strategy for mental health and, indeed, health across the board. We need to report every year on that, but the first year will also be a report on the consultation and its conclusion, including the conclusion of a draft code of practice. We expect that to take approximately 12 months.
That, in some ways, has also answered the shadow Minister’s question about training and resources. A big part of the reason for the 10-year implementation period is the time that it will take to do the training and the training needs analysis, to identify trainers to deliver the training, and to get the system up to speed. That will be a fairly large chunk of the 10-year process.
Dr Evans
The Opposition appreciate the timescale taken to skill-up in this area, but the workforce plan is soon to be announced by the hon. Member’s Government. Has any consideration been made of what the capacity might look like, and of the crossover between having this legislation not quite in place—although likely to happen, upon Royal Assent—and its impact on updating the workforce plan on mental health?
Stephen Kinnock
The shadow Minister is tempting me to reveal the details of the workforce plan. While I have a huge amount of respect for this Committee, I do not think that it is where we will launch it. Absolutely, however, that is built into our thinking about the plan. There is a huge mental health challenge in our country, and those with acute and severe disorders and conditions which the Bill is designed to address are absolutely a part of that. A skilled and compassionate workforce is required, and I pay tribute to the amazing staff, mental health professionals and others who work in this area, often in incredibly challenging circumstances. We recognise and value that. The Bill does need to hook up with the workforce plan, and we are focused on that.
On Wales and the risk of divergence, the shadow Minister makes an interesting point. I guess it is about ensuring that that there is devolution, but not divergence, in the sense that we have a framework here—much of the legal framework is reserved—but the delivery of mental health services is devolved. That balance has to be right, but it is something that the two Governments have been working on since devolution started in 1998. There is a fairly mature and sophisticated culture in the interface between the two Governments. The shadow Minister is right to flag that point, and I am more than happy to seek some assurances from officials and write to him. However, as things stand, I do not see any particular risks.
Dr Evans
The Minister is right that there is shared working. However, part of the problem between devolved nations, such as Scotland and Wales, is that the datasets and definitions of data are often changed. Actually, the comparison of data across the UK can be quite hard to manage. Given that we are talking specifically about mental health, including some of the most at-risk people with the most severe mental health illnesses, will the Government commit to pushing for shared data that is comparable between Scotland and Wales, which we are legislating on in this case, to ensure that there is data transparency, so no one country can hide behind a different comparison or by saying, “We are looking at apples and pears”?
Stephen Kinnock
It is important that we do not see devolution as a wall between the two countries; in fact, we should be sharing information and best practice—nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. The Welsh Government have achieved some things, particularly in mental health, that England could learn from, and vice versa. There is no reason why the data cannot be shared from my own practicable and pragmatic point of view. There may be some issues with data protection, but data protection law really should be implemented in the same way right across the board because it is reserved.
Dr Evans
I entirely agree, and I hope that data is and will be shared. The question is about the definitions and standards, such as those used for waiting times. We often use the A&E waiting time of four hours. When it comes to the most vulnerable patients who will potentially be on waiting lists, or looking at specific data, if it is categorised differently in Wales, Scotland and England, that makes it very hard to see where best practice is so that it can be shared. That is the Opposition’s concern. I know that both sides of the House have shared that concern in my five years in Parliament. Is there a mechanism to address that issue either in the Bill or in the Minister’s wider portfolio?
Stephen Kinnock
I see. I am sorry; I had misunderstood the shadow Minister’s point. I thought it was about sharing data on particular patients, especially those who are crossing borders. The point about waiting lists is a more difficult issue. The Welsh Government have taken a view on how best to define them. For example, I know that ambulance waiting times have been quite controversial because there is a different definition in Wales to England. Many feel that the definition adopted by the Welsh Government sets the bar at a higher standard, which can then sometimes framed, in the hurly-burly of politics, as failing more than they would be if they had used a different metric, but they have chosen to use that metric.
In the context of devolution, it is up to the Welsh Government to decide how best to evaluate the Welsh health service and its performance. I take the shadow Minister’s point on having the best alignment that we can, but when it comes to this UK Government, we will determine how performance is evaluated for England, and the Welsh Government will determine how best to evaluate performance for Wales. I think that the Welsh media, the UK media, this Parliament and the Welsh Parliament will then decide who is failing and who is succeeding.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I represent an English constituency on the border with Wales; on some streets, one side is considered Welsh and the other English. Does the Minister recognise that it matters to people in England and Wales that there is consistency across both parts of our fantastic country, and that it is not sufficient to say that what happens in Wales will affect only Welsh people, or what happens in England will affect only English people?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely accept the point that there are deeply integrated communities on that border. A huge number of people live in England and work in Wales, or live in Wales and work in England. However, the fact of the matter is that health is a devolved policy area. It is, therefore, up to the devolved Administrations to determine how they want to measure the performance of their respective systems. It would be a violation of the principles of devolution if one Government in our United Kingdom were to dictate to another how they should evaluate their devolved policy areas—whether that is health, education or any other devolved area. I hope that I have responded to the best of my ability.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Application of the Mental Health Act 1983: autism and learning disability
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations update the definitions in subsection (2) in response to scientific advancements.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would allow the definitions for mental disorder, autism, learning disability and psychiatric disorder to be updated by secondary legislation as science evolves.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to amendment 56, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who has extensive clinical experience. The amendment provides for a narrowly drawn but important power, namely, to update, via regulations and subject to affirmative procedure, the statutory definitions in clause 3, in response to developments in scientific and clinical understanding.
I recognise that any clause that confers powers on the Executive to amend the statutory definitions must be treated with due caution. There could be concerns that changes could be made without broad clinical consensus. However, on this occasion, I believe that my hon. Friend, who brings to the debate the weight of his clinical expertise, has struck the right balance. The proposed power is tightly scoped. It is triggered only by new scientific knowledge. It cannot be exercised on ministerial whim. Crucially, it is subject to the full rigour of parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is not a case of Executive overreach; it is a recognition that the pace of medical and neuroscientific research is such that legislation risks obsolescence unless we allow for responsible adaptation.
One need only look at the evolution of our understanding of conditions such as autism spectrum disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder to appreciate how quickly definitions can move on. Clearly, any change must reflect best practice and take place under broad consultation. However, I argue that we are not opening the back door to arbitrary change; we are safeguarding the front door against stagnation. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to amendment 56, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The amendment proposes to grant the Secretary of State the power to update the definitions of “mental disorder”, “autism”, “learning disability” and “psychiatric disorder” by secondary legislation, subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Currently, the Bill sets out fixed definitions of those terms in the primary legislation—the Mental Health Act, as amended. Those definitions can be changed only through further primary legislation. That means that any further change, reflecting new scientific knowledge or evolving clinical consensus, would require a full legislative process. Given that the Act was passed in 1983, and we are here more than 40 years later, I think that the problem is clear.
Anna Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the work of the World Health Organisation in producing the international classification of diseases and ICD-11, which provides a scientific, evidence-based update, including on psychiatric disorders, autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders? Has he considered whether that is an appropriate reference point for the Bill?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member makes a good point. We have had ICD-10 and DSM-5, which aim to codify those disorders. Part of the problem is that someone with Korsakoff syndrome, which is brain damage from alcohol, or with Rett’s disease would potentially come under the scope of these definitions. That makes it very difficult. What about acquired brain injury? That is an emerging field—the House has looked at it and has put a strategy in place. However, there could be problems in the legislation going forward.
The amendment is asking, I think, how we scientifically proof the Bill so that we do not need to introduce further primary legislation. That is the question that the Government need to grapple with. As a doctor, I have seen the difficulties and practicalities of these definitions, and of trying to put people in a box. For example, where does Asperger’s fit on the autism scale? What does that look like on the spectrum of conditions? Are we trying to codify that? These are the real, pragmatic problems of putting definitions in place. That means it is all the more important to look at definitions, but, as the hon. Member for Shipley has rightly pointed out, the definitions have already moved on while we have been discussing the Bill. Introducing a mechanism that allows the House to update the legislation in keeping with advances in scientific knowledge is really important. The question is whether this is the right amendment to do that.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make updates through regulations—secondary legislation—which would thereby enable a more flexible and responsive approach. Importantly, it requires that any such regulations must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses, which maintains parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight.
The potential benefits of this approach are clear. It offers the possibility of allowing the law to evolve and stay aligned with scientific evidence and clinical best practice without undue delay. That could prevent outdated or overly rigid definitions from adversely impacting vulnerable people, and better reflects the complexities of mental health conditions. It would allow the law to keep pace with advances in the scientific understanding of autism, learning disability and mental disorders, without the need for primary legislation. It could help ensure that the definitions remain clinically accurate and relevant, improving how the law is applied and reducing the risk of outdated criteria causing harm or confusion.
As the hon. Member for Shipley pointed out, that is part of the problem. As new criteria come up, there is a delay in the uptake of definitions. From my experience in clinical practice, keeping up to date with definitions can sometimes be a challenge. It is part of the personal development plan to make sure there is that understanding, but there is always a drip through as change in practice comes through, along with clinicians being comfortable and happy to use the new definitions. With any new medication, it is important to understand the side effects and the pros and cons of what it is trying to achieve, and to be able to explain that fully so that a patient can consent when taking that medication. The same applies when trying to explain a condition to patients. If there is a change and a new aspect to the way in which a definition is being applied, it is important that we have some flexibility.
The affirmative procedure preserves Parliament’s role, offering safeguards against unchecked ministerial power. However, there are some important considerations and potential drawbacks. Definitions of mental health conditions have profound legal and social implications. Delegating this power, even with parliamentary approval, risks politicisation or inconsistent application if regulations are used too frequently or without adequate consultation.
Secondary legislation typically receives less parliamentary debate and public scrutiny than primary legislation, even with the affirmative procedure, which may not suffice for such significant changes. There is also a risk that the changes could be made in a reactive or piecemeal way rather than with a coherent legislative framework, potentially leading to legal uncertainty or unintended consequences.
Given those points, I have several questions for the Minister. How do the Government propose to keep the legislation updated, given that we are only updating the Mental Health Act now, 40 years on? Do they have a mechanism in mind to ensure that any updates to the definitions are accompanied by robust clinical and expert consultation, while reacting to advances in medical understanding? Would the Government consider a formal review mechanism such as a mandated periodic independent review of the definitions? That could solve the problem of legislation becoming outdated, and put the safeguards in place. If there is a difference in the scientific community, we need to make sure that any changes are broadly in agreement with the direction of travel of scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, in considering the need for balanced, flexible and democratic accountability, the Government could introduce a sunset clause on any regulations, so that any changes would be revisited and renewed by primary legislation within a set period, unless Parliament agrees otherwise.
Crucially, to my knowledge, there are no standing statutory bodies or panels tasked with reviewing or advising the Government on the legal definitions of mental health conditions. There is an argument that without a dedicated expert body to guide the Secretary of State, we cannot be sure that any changes are robustly evidence-based and clinically sound. Currently, we have the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the royal colleges, the Department of Health and Social Care and the intermittent mental health review bodies, but have the Government considered establishing a formal advisory mechanism to address problems in the future? The Opposition can see the argument both ways, but to govern is to choose, and it would be useful to understand the Minister’s thoughts on this area.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman seems to be overcomplicating the need for additional scrutiny. Will he acknowledge the work of the World Health Organisation to review the evidence on a global basis and update the definitions of psychiatric disorders?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is correct about the way in which the world looks at this issue. The problem is that we are sat here debating definitions in legislation that is 40 years old. Will we be here in 40 years debating definitions that have moved on? The amendment suggests that, somehow, we need to try to ensure that legislation is flexible and updated enough, and has the scrutiny and safeguards in place. That relates to not just health, but any part of government that we tend to look at in the House.
I wanted to speak to the amendment to probe the Government on how they will safeguard the legislation. I do not have all the answers, but this is important. I do not want to see my successors—the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth from whatever party—sat here debating this issue in 40 years’ time because the definitions that we happen to set today have become outdated and have unintended consequences.
That is the balance that I am looking for. I do not see a body across the UK, given that this is UK legislation, that fulfils this role. It could be a transitory role or fully established. A psychiatrist could take it on, or it could come under NICE. With the abolition of NHS England, it could be a new role for the Department of Health to take on. All those are viable vehicles that could potentially look into the definitions. I want to ensure that what we pass in Parliament actually translates into the real world for clinicians, patients and the public.
The Opposition can see the argument both ways, as I mentioned. Perhaps it would be useful to have an expert panel, with representatives of clinicians, legal experts and service users to support regulatory updates. I put those questions to the Minister and I look forward to his answers.
Stephen Kinnock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley for moving the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and to the shadow Minister for speaking to it.
As this regulation-making power would amend primary legislation, it would signify a Henry VIII power that the Government consider to be unjustified. We have significant concern that it could change the way in which the Bill applies to people with certain conditions without appropriate consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. The serious matter of detention for compulsory treatment should be considered in primary legislation.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley spoke about the need to stay in touch with our evolving understanding of these terms and conditions. My view is that the Bill does that. We have modified the meaning of mental disorder by including new definitions of autism, learning disability and psychiatric disorder. That acknowledges the advancement in our understanding of learning disabilities and autism, and how the Bill should apply in respect of those conditions. Any future change to the definitions should be a matter for Parliament, informed by strong evidence and consultation with the public.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
Currently, a person with a learning disability can be detained for treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act when their learning disability
“is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”.
A person can be detained under section 3 on the basis of being autistic, which is classed as a mental disorder under the Act. However, we know that people with a learning disability and autistic people may sometimes be detained because of needs that have arisen due to insufficient community support, rather than for treatment of a mental health condition, and compulsory treatment in hospital settings is rarely likely to be helpful, particularly for autistic people.
Clause 3 and schedule 1 will insert new definitions in the Act and make amendments using those definitions throughout the Act. Those amendments will remove, for the purposes of part 2 of the Act, learning disability and autism from the conditions for which a person can be detained for compulsory treatment. It will be possible to detain someone for treatment under part 2 only if they satisfy the conditions set out in section 3, as amended by the Bill. These include that they have a “psychiatric disorder”, which is a
“mental disorder other than autism or learning disability”.
The changes will not apply to section 2 of the Act, under which a person can be detained for a maximum of 28 days for assessment to understand whether they have a psychiatric disorder that warrants detention under section 3. The revised detention criteria will not apply to part 3, so people in the criminal justice system can continue to be diverted to hospital, where appropriate, to access the specialist support they may need.
We recognise the importance of implementation in ensuring these reforms have their intended effect. For this reason, the proposed changes will be commenced only when there are strong community services in place. I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.
Dr Evans
It is a pleasure to speak to clause 3, which brings forward the vital and long overdue changes to the way our laws treat autism and learning disabilities under the Mental Health Act. The clause responds to a persistent injustice: the inappropriate detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in mental health hospitals, often for years at a time, without meaningful therapeutic benefit. Those individuals are not mentally ill, yet they have too often been detained, medicated and restrained as if they were.
As the law stands, individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people can be detained both for assessment, under section 2 of the Act, and for treatment, under section 3. Notably, people with learning disabilities may be detained under section 3 when their condition
“is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”,
whereas that does not currently apply to autistic people. Evidence and reports show that some such detentions can be lengthy and may not always provide therapeutic benefit. That raises concerns about the appropriateness of detention on the basis of disability alone. In my time on the Health and Social Care Committee, we looked specifically at this topic and produced a report, some of which has influenced the Bill.
The clause aims to directly address the issue of lengthy detentions for such individuals. For the first time, the law will clearly define autism and learning disability—something that has not happened for 40 years. As science has moved on, legislation must follow. Autism will now be recognised as a “lifelong developmental condition” that affects perception, communication and interaction, and learning disability will be defined as “significant impairment” of intellectual functioning.
Supported by schedule 1, the clause seeks to clarify and refine that position by introducing formal definitions of “autism”, “learning disability” and “psychiatric disorder”. Crucially, it removes autism and learning disability as stand-alone grounds for compulsory treatment and detention under section 3. Instead, detention for treatment will be permitted only if a person has a co-occurring psychiatric disorder—that is, a mental disorder other than autism or learning disability. Additionally, the change applies to community treatment orders, meaning that they cannot be applied solely on the basis of autism or a learning disability. However, the Act makes it clear that the changes do not apply to people detained under part 3 of the Act who are within the criminal justice system. For that group, autism and learning disabilities with serious behavioural consequences remain grounds for detention and treatment disorders.
The Bill introduces the new term, “psychiatric disorder”, meaning any mental disorder excluding autism or a learning disability. That distinction matters because detention under section 3 of the Act—compulsory admission for treatment—will no longer be permitted solely on the basis of someone being autistic or having a learning disability. From now on, a person may be detained only if they have a co-occurring psychiatric disorder or their learning disability is associated with “serious behavioural consequences”, such as
“abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”.
That reflects a fundamental shift in the philosophy of the Act from using hospitalisation as a containment tool to ensuring that any detention has a clear clinical and therapeutic purpose.
This reform is rooted in the recommendations of the 2018 review of the Mental Health Act, which was led by Professor Simon Wessely, and has been championed by groups such as the National Autistic Society. It represents a more modern understanding, as we currently see things, so there are many positives—it protects people’s rights, preventing detention simply for being different, it promotes community-based care rather than institutionalisation, it modernises the law in line with current clinical understanding and it seeks to end the harm caused by prolonged non-therapeutic hospital stays, which often involving over-medication and restraint.
However, I also sound a note of caution: the clause alone will not be enough. There is rightly concern about the provision for robust community services. We risk creating legal protections that are admirable on paper but ineffective in practice. I know that the Minister appreciates this dilemma. If people cannot get the right support in the community, they will still end up in crisis, and possibly still be detained—just under a different part of the law.
There are also concerns about ambiguity. The phrase “serious behavioural consequences” may be open to a wide interpretation. Without clear guidance and training, we risk inconsistencies and even potential loopholes that could undermine the intent of this reform. I commend the Government’s intention to protect autistic people and people with learning disabilities from potentially inappropriate detentions, and to ensure that compulsory treatment is targeted to those with mental disorders warranting hospital care.
The emphasis on therapeutic benefit and the principle of least restriction aligns well with the human rights standard and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. However, I have several questions that I hope the Government will be able to address. How will clinicians reliably distinguish between behaviours arising from autism and learning disabilities and behaviours arising from co-occurring psychiatric disorders, given the complexity of presentations in this population? Is there, or will there be, clear guidance and training to support those assessments? For individuals with severe autism or learning disabilities who display challenging behaviours but do not have a diagnoseable psychiatric disorder, what alternative pathways and supports are envisaged to ensure their safety and wellbeing without resorting to detention?
On the issue of patients under part 3 of the Bill, I know the Government’s rationale for maintaining broader detention definition criteria, but will there be additional safeguards or oversight to ensure those patients are not subject to unnecessarily prolonged or restrictive detention? The removal of “social functioning” from the definition of learning disability is intended to create a clearer distinction from autism, but could the changes create any unintended legal or clinical ambiguities in practice?
The changes could introduce some unintended consequences. Previously, impairments in social function were considered part of the learning disability definition, which helped capture individuals whose social difficulties accompanied intellectual impairments. Without that, there may be legal and clinical uncertainty for people with borderline or overlapping conditions. For example, someone with moderate intellectual impairment and significant social difficulties might no longer clearly fit the learning disability definition. Similarly, autistic individuals with mild intellectual disability who experience social challenges could find their diagnosis and legal status less certain. Those ambiguities risk inconsistent assessments and potential gaps in access to appropriate care unless the Government provide clear guidance to clinicians and tribunals on how to navigate complex presentations. What plans are in place to monitor and evaluate the impact of the changes on detention rates, patient outcomes and the availability of community-based alternatives?
In closing, this is an important clause that moves us closer to a system that respects autonomy, delivers appropriate care and upholds the rights of neurodivergent people. But we must be mindful that passing this legislation must not be seen as the end of the job. As the Minister understands, it is the beginning. If we are to drive reform, the Government will need to set out the funding and workforce pathway for the services that will deliver it. We must train professionals, empower families and support voices of lived experience at every level. Only then will clause 3 deliver on its promise not just to change law, but to change lives.
I turn to schedule 1. Schedules are an important and yet often overlooked part of the legislative process. It is worth reminding the Committee that a schedule is a part of a Bill’s function, like a detailed appendix. It contains the granular, often technical amendments that give practical and legal effect to the broad principles set out in main clauses. In other words, the clause tells us what Parliament intends to do and schedules show us how it will be done: amending existing statutes, updating definitions and ensuring consistency across legal frameworks.
In this Bill, schedule 1 is particularly consequential. It does the heavy lifting of applying the reforms in clause 3 to the existing Mental Health Act 1983, especially with regard to how we treat autism and learning disabilities within the scope of mental health law. Let us be clear that the schedule is not simply technical. It is transformational in what it attempts to do. Where the 1983 Act spoke broadly of mental disorder, schedule 1 now creates a more precise legal category—“relevant disorder”—defined to include psychiatric disorder, autism and learning disability with serious behavioural consequences. That matters enormously. In fact, it is one of the key reasons for the review of this entire piece of legislation. Individuals with autism or learning disabilities have been subject to compulsory powers, including detention, as we have heard, in the absence of any co-occurring mental illness. That is a practice with which the Committee should rightly be uncomfortable.
Schedule 1 amends not only the criteria for compulsory admission under section 3, but those for guardianship, community treatment orders, tribunal discharge and even the treatment provisions in part 4 of the Act. This breadth shows that clause 3 is not merely a rhetorical shift; it is being operationalised throughout the entire Act. With such significant implications, the schedule raises serious and legitimate questions that I am sure will form the backbone of the ongoing discussions in Committee over the next few weeks.
First, what is the threshold for serious behavioural consequences? Will that be clearly defined? Without precision, we risk substituting one vague standard for another. Secondly, do the transitory provisions offer enough clarity for frontline practitioners, in particular approved mental health professionals and tribunal panels who will be making decisions in grey areas between new and old law? Again, what about the cross-border issue between Wales and England? Thirdly, given the change from mental disorder to psychiatric disorders in some sections but not others, what is the Government’s rationale for that linguistic differentiation? Is there a risk of confusion among legal and clinical practitioners? To clarify—I am happy to share this with the Minister—I went through it and there appear to be a few occasions where the definition was changed, but some areas where it was not. Now, that may be my naïve understanding as a mere shadow Minister, but I would welcome the clarification and I am happy to pass them on to the Clerks to ensure that, if we are going to update the Bill, all parts are updated. Finally, and critically, do we have the workforce, training and services in place to support this cultural and clinical shift away from paternalism towards community-based and rights-respecting alternatives?
Schedule 1 shows us that reform is not just about good intentions, but getting the detail right. It is about ensuring the law reflects modern clinical understanding and human dignity. I support the direction of travel, but I gently remind the Minister to ensure that the operational mechanisms of the schedule are tested, clarified and, where necessary, strengthened. We owe that to the individuals and the families for whom we are producing this legislation to improve their lives.
Anna Dixon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I will make a few brief remarks on clause 3. For many of us, the detention and long-term institutionalisation of people with autism and learning disabilities is a shameful part of the NHS’s history. The Bill, and particularly this clause, will finally make it very clear that that is no longer acceptable. It is a further shame that, despite the Winterbourne View report in 2012, so little progress has actually been made on providing for people to be cared for in the community and closer to home.
Stephen Kinnock
The red thread that goes through all those questions, from both my hon. Friend and the Opposition spokesman, is very much about how we are going to build a clear and strong understanding of what good community support looks like, and then build towards it so that we achieve the aims that we set out for ourselves. In many ways, that is a difficult question to answer in this Committee, because an important part of the answer will come from the consultation on the code of practice that will be launched as soon as the Bill gets Royal Assent.
The Government believe passionately in making policy on the basis of evidence, so we need that consultation and input for the code of practice. We need a clear definition based on engagement with those who are at the cutting edge of delivering these services, so that we can define the new reality that we want to work towards, and then implement it step by step.
I apologise to Committee members for the fact that in some ways that is a step beyond what we are doing here in scrutinising the Bill. We will, I hope, pass the Bill, and then it will get Royal Assent. From that day, we will be straining every sinew to get community services to where they need to be.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I do not want to speak outside the scope of the clause, but I would very much welcome a commitment from the Minister on ensuring that people with learning disabilities and/or autism are part of the process of the consultation to produce guidance on what good community services look like, and that they are engaged with from the start in a very real and meaningful way.
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her outstanding work in the all-party parliamentary group; I am looking forward to meeting with the APPG as soon as diary time can be organised.
There is absolutely no point in the Government making policy in an ivory tower in Westminster or Whitehall. Policy must be evidence-based and based on the real, lived experience of patients—we are very committed to building a patient-centric national health service—and practitioners. If we try to make policy without involving the voices of those people, the policy will fail; we know that from bitter experience.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I, too, have received messages from organisations in my constituency that welcome clause 3 and clause 4, which I will speak to later. On the implementation, however, they have made it very clear that it is really important to hear the voices of the individuals who will be impacted and their families. As we work with the ICBs, local authorities and commissioners to implement these new regulations, I seek an assurance that the voices of the community will be heard.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those voices must be heard. One example is that we must produce a code of practice to ensure that approved mental health professionals are better supported in their decision making, including when assessing whether somebody with a learning disability or an autistic person has a co-occurring mental disorder. At the heart of the process are the assessment and the definition, and the pathway that flows from that. That code of practice can be developed only on the basis of dialogue and engagement with precisely the people he has talked about.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Building on the Minister’s last point, can he reassure the Committee that any consultation will have a strong focus on ensuring that practitioners have the training and, most importantly, the resources that they need to achieve a seamless transition from one set of regulations to another?
Stephen Kinnock
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are moving to a nuanced position that is about defining where there are co-occurring conditions and where there are not. I think everybody recognises that that is, by definition, a complex process, so the training and the code of practice that go around it will be vital.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
In the past, many people with mental health disorders have been detained in hospitals for months or even years because of a lack of proper social care provision in the community. Will the Minister also ensure that local communities, which will be providing social care for patients who are discharged from hospital, are part of that discussion?
Stephen Kinnock
It is absolutely a team effort. Sadly, when people have severe and acute mental health disorders, a multi-agency effort is often required to support them and to help them to get the treatment they need. The process should not be about trying to isolate people. We are keen to ensure that people stay in mainstream society and remain as integrated as possible, because that is often an important part of supporting their mental health condition.
All of that means that local authorities, mental health professionals, social workers, and often children’s social care professionals or adult social care professionals are important in the process—it requires a team effort. That integrated approach will be really important as we build the community services that we want to see.
Gregory Stafford
On the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about local authorities, given that the Government are devolving and reorganising local government structures across parts of the country, how will the Minister ensure that the standards around this issue—and other health and social care issues—are maintained? That restructuring means that we will have a whole load of new local authorities that do not necessarily have experience of dealing with this area.
Stephen Kinnock
The devolution Bill and the process of reorganising and restructuring are based on two really strong principles: that it is up to us through legislation to create the outcomes that we need to see delivered across the country and that there are clear standards and targets that we need to see met. But the implementation work needs to be done to deliver those desired outcomes and targets. Local authorities are empowered to do that, which is why we are seeing, for example, a lot of breaking down of ringfencing. The Government are keen to massively reduce the amount of ringfencing, because that has become a straitjacket for local authorities, integrated care boards and others in how they can best manage their portfolio of activities and deliver that devolved power and responsibility.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we want to devolve. We are absolutely committed to decentralising and we believe that is an important part of modern governance. Of course, that has to be done within a framework of set targets and the development of community services that the Bill commits to. All of that will come together to enable those at the coalface, who are best placed to understand them, how to deliver those services to their communities.
Stephen Kinnock
I just need to turn to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. On strong duties, the code of practice flows from the primary legislation and therefore has a statutory power. There is no stronger power to ensure that people with learning disabilities and autism get the treatment, service and support that they require. The system will have a statutory duty to ensure that that happens within the framework of the legislation.
My hon. Friend is right that the transition from children’s to adult services is a major challenge. I am engaging with colleagues in the Department for Education about that to ensure that conversations about the transition happen upstream. We do not want a situation where an individual is looked after until they are 18 and then handed over without any prior conversations and engagement. We want the handover from one service to the other to be as seamless as possible. Our commitment to dynamic support registers will help in this context. They will be an important tool for understanding the needs of individuals who are at risk of admission and for getting that information into the system across the board prior to any detention.
My hon. Friend also asked about carers who so often pick up the baton in the gaps in community provision. She is absolutely right to flag that. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the millions of unpaid carers across our country, many of them dealing with extremely challenging family situations. The system would simply collapse without them, so she is right to pay tribute to those people.
Dr Evans
I want to expand a little on the practicalities and respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about local authorities. I declare an interest because Leicestershire is one of the 21 county councils going through a devolution process. About 85% of its budget deals with special educational needs and social care. It is part of an ICB where the mental health team and primary and secondary care come together, but there is oversight from NHS England.
With so many moving parts, including the legislation we are putting in place, the budgetary constraints for ICBs, and the fact that we are getting rid of NHS England, there is a real worry among Opposition Members that things could drop through the gap, or more likely, that because we are moving all these things at the same time, we do not decide which is the fixed point that leads where others follow. If we are trying to cut costs in the ICBs, if NHS England is going over the next two years, and if devolution of responsibilities is also happening over the next couple of years with unitary councils forming, we will create a sticky situation for who is actually leading on this issue. At the heart of it are the clinicians and the patients who could fall through the gap.
What consideration has been given to the top-down strategy for how to incorporate all that? The Minister has talked about a red thread that runs through it all, but is there a running plan? Different Departments, agencies and areas of the country are involved. They are trying to come together to manage their budgets, legislation and policies. It is a complex situation to work through. The imperative part—the legislation—is almost the easier part to get in place; it is the delivery that is all-important. Can the Minister explain further how those three things tessellate?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not know whether I will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in its entirety, because quite a lot of that is being led by my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—in the English devolution Bill, for example. On the part of his question relating to the Department of Health and Social Care, we came to the view following the general election last year that NHS England was an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. We think it is important that there is a clear line of accountability from the Secretary of State to Ministers, to ICBs, to trusts and to the system per se for delivery. That line of accountability was being blurred by NHS England, which is why we have removed it from the equation.
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are a lot of moving parts, but, by definition, a reform agenda creates change and some turbulence. We believe that is the only way we will get the system to where we need it to be so that we can deliver the three big shifts in our 10-year health plan: the shifts from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. Many of the questions he is asking will be answered in the 10-year plan. He does not have long to wait for that to be published; it is coming very soon.
I reiterate that the principle underlying all of this is about empowering, devolving and giving agency to those closest to the communities they serve, because they are best placed to deliver. That all has to fit into the Bill, but the fundamental principle underpinning the Bill is the right one: it is about devolution, and about being patient-centric. The Bill deals with a cohort of people whose needs should drive the services that we design and deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4
People with autism or learning disability
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
“(iv) housing.”
This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care, education and treatment review meetings.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
“(iv) accommodation and relocation, and”.
This amendment ensures that the impact of accommodation and relocation is considered in care and treatment reviews for patients with autism or learning disabilities.
Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“(v) the patient,
(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and
(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”
This amendment would ensure that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive copy of a care, education, and treatment review meeting report for children and young people with autism or a learning disability.
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 5, line 31, for “12” substitute “six”.
This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(iii) housing, and”.
This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care and treatment review meetings.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(v) the patient,
(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and
(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”
This amendment ensures that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive a copy of a care and treatment review meeting report.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 7, line 40, for “12” substitute “six”.
This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 8, line 12, leave out “must have regard to” and insert
“have a duty to carry out”.
This amendment ensures that integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient's treatment and care have a duty to implement recommendations arising from a care and treatment review.
Dr Chambers
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I will speak to amendments 1, 51 and 4 together, as they all relate to housing. Amendment 1 ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care, education and treatment reviews. Amendment 51 ensures that the impact of accommodation and relocation is considered in care and treatment reviews for patients with autism or learning disabilities. Amendment 4 ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care and treatment reviews.
Appropriate housing is critical for people’s wellbeing and cannot be viewed as separate from effective and safe care. Ensuring that housing or any temporary or crisis accommodation supports the safety and independence of people with a learning disability should be a key part of care, education and treatment reviews. We believe that it is essential for fulfilling the duties of the Bill.
Without that provision, it will be far harder for patients to leave detention and for care to be facilitated in the community. If people with learning disabilities who are detained risk being discharged into insecure or inappropriate housing, their recovery from mental ill health could be jeopardised. Patients should be viewed in their whole context, not just as a collection of conditions or symptoms. Housing is among the most fundamental social needs that should be considered.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendments 2 and 5, which, in summary, would ensure that patients, named persons and independent mental health advocates would receive a copy of a care, education and treatment review meeting report for children and young people with autism or a learning disability.
Patients, along with all those tasked with helping to represent their wishes, should be able to see transparently what has been judged to be safe and appropriate care for them. Being given the opportunity to understand why their care or treatment is changing or remaining the same should be a basic right for patients, yet as it stands they are often frozen out of seeing that final report. Similarly, the nominated person, whether that is a friend, a mother, a sibling, or another parent, often has care of the patient; they know the whole person better than any NHS institution, and will often have a far fuller understanding of the patient’s history.
Gregory Stafford
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with these amendments. My question is about how she would ensure, within the context of the provisions, that the patient’s confidentiality would be maintained where it needed to be.
Zöe Franklin
The hon. Member raises an interesting and pertinent point. There will always need to be balance when addressing the issues around patient confidentiality. I have seen from my own casework that when families who have been through mental health crises with their loved ones have not been involved in that process, unfortunately the crisis has lasted much longer and been more significant because those around them have been unable to support the individual. I do not have the answer, but we need to work collectively to find a way to strike that balance in order to address the needs of the patient.
Gregory Stafford
Moving on from the confidentiality point, if there is going to be sharing—again, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments—how would the hon. Lady ensure that disagreements between family members and the patient are safeguarded against?
Zöe Franklin
That presents challenges, but again, I would refer back to my own casework, and I am sure there are Members on the Committee who will have had the same experience. There are examples across the UK where health boards and providers find ways to appropriately share information with families and other carers to get the best outcomes for patients. I simply ask that, when the Minister and colleagues in this space have those examples, they share them. I know that there are some areas where this is already done effectively, particularly in Scotland, and I seek to reference those examples.
My final point on amendments 2 and 5 is that we need to ensure that those around a patient are given the opportunity to raise concern or the alarm when part of the report does not meet the patient’s needs. We need to address the patient’s full needs, and to ensure that they are both reflected in the reports and met.
Aphra Brandreth
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, I have a lot of sympathy with some of the things that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve through the amendments. If there is to be an additional requirement for six-monthly rather than annual checks, how will the balance be struck to ensure that there is a focus on care rather than on the administrative burden that might be required?
Zöe Franklin
Helpfully, I was about to move on to a point about amendments 3 and 6, which would shorten the length between care and treatment plan reviews from 12 to six months.
We need to reflect on the fact that sometimes we do not get it right when we support an individual. In such circumstances, it is particularly important that we are able to have reviews every six months, rather than 12. It does not have to be a detailed, full-scale review. If all involved in the patient’s care come to the conclusion that the care needs are being met, that review could be incredibly short. If someone’s care is inadequate or inappropriate, it is not right that they should have to suffer unnecessarily for a year without the changes that are needed. Halving the time between the care and treatment reviews ensures that patients are not left languishing and instead have care that truly reflects their individual needs. I would reiterate that a six-month review can be incredibly short, and it also benefits patients by making them aware of where their care is not working for them, so that it can be reviewed.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I have a certain degree of sympathy for the amendments, but I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that patients and their families often find the review process overwhelming in and of itself. Bringing it forward to six months, when such reviews would often not be required, can cause a huge amount of stress and place pressure on those family units and patients. Of course, reviews can be brought forward when clinical need requires it. To stipulate that within the legislation puts an enormous burden upon those families and, most importantly, the patients.
Zöe Franklin
I return to my point that a review can be short when clinicians and those involved in a patient’s treatment deem it appropriate. Again, where the system is working for a patient, it is good and proper that we do a short review, and they can then carry on with their treatment. When it is not working, why should the patient struggle on for 12 months alongside their families, who will also be struggling?
Zöe Franklin
No, I will move on to amendment 7, which I also want to cover. This amendment is very important, as it would ensure that the integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient’s treatment and care would have a duty to implement the recommendations arising from a care and treatment review. The legislation states “must have regard to”, but we believe that that is too weak and could see crucial parts of care and treatment reviews left unimplemented.
As it stands, this part of the Bill could be considered to be implemented even if no adequate resourcing was required, with the care and treatment review left as an empty exercise. One of the key parts of this legislation is to ensure that resources are there to implement treatment for patients. Will the Minister reassure us that adequate resources will be provided to ensure that patients’ treatment needs are met, that training for clinicians and others supporting an individual is made available through resourcing, and that we do not again find ourselves in a situation like the current one, in which patients too often struggle because there are not the resources to meet their care needs?
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 1 to 7 and 51 to clause 4. I welcome the intention behind the amendments, which aim to enhance the care and treatment review process for people with autism and learning disabilities, particularly by addressing housing and accommodation needs and ensuring that key advocates receive reports.
There are positive elements of the amendments that are worth highlighting. I understand the good intent of including housing and accommodation considerations explicitly in reviews, as it recognises that a person’s living situation is often central to their wellbeing and recovery. Additionally, ensuring that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive reports promptly promotes transparency and patient advocacy. Shortening the review intervals from 12 to six months could lead to more responsive care planning.
However, I have some significant reservations about the statutory implications of blurring housing, for example, so directly with the care and treatment review process. Housing is traditionally managed under separate statutory frameworks from health and social care, so to embed housing as a statutory element within these reviews risks creating confusion about which agency holds responsibility and may expose health bodies or commissioners to legal obligations that they are neither funded nor structured for.
I have a few questions for the Liberal Democrats. In their eyes, how would the Government ensure clarity over the statutory duties applied to housing recommendations arising from the reviews? Would that not risk delaying or complicating discharges if housing issues became a statutory sticking point within health-led care reviews? Moreover, housing provision often depends on local authorities and housing departments that have their own complex eligibility criteria and resourcing constraints. Are we confident that ICBs and responsible commissioners would be able to co-ordinate effectively across these boundaries, especially given the patchwork of funding and powers in play?
Gregory Stafford
To take that point slightly further, given that pretty much every local authority has a different set of criteria by which to determine people’s housing needs, how would, for example, an ICB that potentially crosses multiple local authorities with differing housing needs be able to understand the complexities within the current structure, and ensure that the patient is served best?
Dr Evans
Those are exactly the kind of practical questions that we really need to think about when we definitively put into legislation what that would look like. My constituency now has several boundaries across the borders with Warwickshire and Staffordshire, which causes problems when it comes to deciding who will look after what. On the criteria, my hon. Friend raises another point: will there be a regulatory fight or even infighting between the ICB and the local authorities to determine whose criteria cover what, and who trumps who? To top that off—I raised this matter with the Minister earlier—I would be interested to understand how the Liberal Democrats would deal with that problem, given that the Government are pushing through their devolution agenda. We have already heard about the complexity of everything tessellating together. That makes it very interesting, to put it politely, to consider how it would work in practice.
On the related point of the duty imposed on ICBs and local authorities to have regard to review recommendations, I note that amendment 7 would insert the phrase
“have a duty to carry out”.
I have concerns in this area too, which I will raise in later comments, but let me explain a little further. The aim is to address accountability, but the Liberal Democrats’ solution would change the provision from “must have regard to” to “have a duty to carry out”. There is an important distinction here: a duty to “have regard to” requires that recommendations may be properly considered and responded to but does not legally compel implementation; a duty to carry out, however, would impose a legal obligation to act on every recommendation, regardless of feasibility, availability or agreement.
That raises a crucial question: if the Government intend to hold ICBs to account for meeting those needs, how would they ensure that the necessary resources, powers and accountabilities for the mechanisms are in place? What oversight would the Liberal Democrats establish to guarantee not just consideration but effective delivery, and how would conflicts be resolved where recommendations are impractical, or local capacity is lacking?
Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to strengthen the duty to respond with clear timelines and a requirement for transparency about decisions, while investing in cross-sector co-ordination mechanisms and adequately resourcing local authorities and housing providers. We could provide statutory guidance to clarify roles and responsibilities, and enhanced oversight to monitor outcomes, rather than simply prescribing an inflexible duty to implement.
In essence, a duty to respond means that the responsible body, whether an integrated care body or the local authority, must formally consider and reply to the recommendations arising from the care and treatment review. It does not legally compel it to carry out every single recommendation, but it requires the body to explain what it will and will not implement, and why it cannot implement a recommendation. That promotes transparency and accountability without creating unrealistic legal obligations. For example, an ICB might say, “We will implement recommendations 1, 3 and 5 within six months, but recommendation 2 is not feasible due to current resource constraint.” That kind of structured response is both practical and responsible.
Gregory Stafford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As I have indicated, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments, but some practical constraints need to be teased out.
Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that housing needs are explicitly considered during a care, education and treatment review meeting. I can see the pros of that. Clearly, a holistic approach recognises that stable housing is fundamental to mental health and recovery, especially for vulnerable individuals. Addressing housing barriers may reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. Likewise, it could lead to improved discharge planning, ensuring that patients are not delayed in hospital due to a lack of suitable accommodation. All Governments, of every colour and political party, want to see collaboration between health, social care and housing services, and the amendment brings those things together.
As I said in an intervention, however, local authorities and NHS bodies such as ICBs may face challenges to co-ordinating housing assessments within the CETRs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned, his constituency crosses a number of local authority boundaries, while my seat of Farnham and Bordon, with two thirds of it in Surrey and one third in Hampshire, has that same issue. The county councils are wonderful and Conservative run, but Waverley is run by Liberal Democrats.
The hon. Member for Winchester, who moved the amendment, recognised the issue of implementation capacity, but there are also likely to be resource constraints. These days, local authorities spend most of their money on social care, education and the bits of health that sit within their remit, so there may be insufficient housing stock or funding to meet the identified needs that the amendment would bring forward. There are therefore practical implications.
Dr Evans
Thinking that through, how does my hon. Friend feel that existing statutory requirements to provide accommodation will balance out if we provide another statutory requirement on accommodation in these plans? Does he worry, as I do, about creating a risk, for example, of pitting someone with severe learning disabilities against a homeless person if there is resource rationing thanks to the practicalities of how many houses we have? Members throughout the House agree that we need to build more houses, but until that happens, such local authorities have the resources issue.
Gregory Stafford
I agree. Even if the Government build the number of houses that they propose—I have some scepticism—there will always be the potential conflict or disagreement on prioritisation in the housing register and list. As my hon. Friend says, that might well lead to local authorities having to change their criteria, which are not necessarily consistent across local authorities, and, as in his example, potentially pitting a homeless person against someone with mental health needs.
The amendment would also have the potential for scope creep. I have a lot of sympathy with what it is trying to achieve, but expanding CETRs to include housing might dilute their focus and overburden the process. I am interested to hear from the mover and supporters of the amendment how they would ensure that the CETR continues to have that core focus on the health and wellbeing of the individual, rather than potentially be bogged down in the mire of housing issues.
Moving on, amendment 51 would ensure that the care and treatment of individuals with autism or learning disabilities explicitly considered the impact of accommodation and relocation in the planning and decision-making process. Again, I have a lot of sympathy with that. It would promote holistic care planning, reduce trauma and disruption, support continuity of care and, I think, align with the person-centred principles throughout the Bill, which all of us support. Again, however, amendment 51 might complicate discharge planning, if suitable accommodation were limited.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that not resolving housing and accommodation at the point of discharge could lead to a delay in transition? Patients would remain in hospital for longer than might be beneficial to them.
Gregory Stafford
I agree entirely. That could be the unintended consequence of amendment 51: in essence, if the housing provision is not there, discharge will be delayed. From my understanding of the amendments in the group, those who tabled them are trying to speed up and improve discharge. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about the practical implications of the Bill.
The amendment would require co-ordination among health, social care and housing services, which may be challenging in under-resourced areas. Frankly, because parts of those organisations are not used to working in the ways that the amendment would require, it might fall over without suitable training, the necessary lead-in time and a practical understanding of how it will work.
Amendment 4 would ensure that housing needs are formally considered during the care and treatment review meetings for adults with autism or a learning disability, without an EHCP. I understand that the aim is to support more effective discharge planning and reduce the risk of unnecessary or prolonged hospital stays. That is entirely in keeping with what we should be trying to do in the Bill. Holistic care planning reduces delays in discharge, improves cross-sector collaboration and supports community-based care, which we all support.
Once again, however, there is potential for complexity in the implementation. New processes may be required to involve the housing authorities. Resources and local housing shortages could limit the amendments’ practical impact. Another layer of complex review processes could add to that administrative burden. If there is inconsistent local capacity, the effectiveness of the amendment will almost certainly vary depending on the local housing infrastructure, which could lead to a postcode lottery, for want of a better phrase, in who receives the adequate care and housing.
Amendment 2 would ensure that children and young people with autism or learning disability, as well as their nominated persons and independent mental health advocates, receive a copy of the care, education and treatment review meeting report. I have a lot of sympathy with that. It potentially increases empowerment and transparency, ensuring that patients and their advocates are fully informed, which could enable better participation in care decisions. It has a legal and ethical alignment with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, both of which emphasise supported decision making. It might also improve advocacy, as independent mental health advocates can more effectively represent a patient’s interest when they have access to the full report.
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend is making valuable points about the benefits of the amendment. For vulnerable individuals, family involvement is often extremely important, but does he agree that that must be balanced with ensuring that potential disagreements do not put at risk what is best for the individual?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a key point that I was about to address. Clearly, where there is a supportive family structure with the best interests of the individual at heart, the amendment will work extraordinarily well. However, we have to be realistic about the practical implications.
Not every patient has a strong family structure around them. Unfortunately, some patients may even have family members who, for financial or other reasons, actively do not have their best interests at heart. There is a potential concern around confidentiality. I ask the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford how they would balance that conflict in practical terms, especially when the CETR includes sensitive clinical information that could be used in a way that is not beneficial to the patient by someone who does not have their best interests at heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury points out, disputes can happen if patients or families disagree with professional assessments or recommendations.
Finally, although this is probably not the strongest point, we should think about the administrative burden. Given the increased workload that we are putting on all our health and care workers and services, there will clearly be an administrative burden in sharing these reports.
Gregory Stafford
I knew it began with S and was somewhere that is not Surrey or Hampshire—because where else would you want to be, Mr Vickers? The amendment would potentially increase the workload, because more frequent reviews place additional pressure on professionals and services.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a risk that the amendment would not only increase the workload of practitioners, but divert attention from patient care?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We operate in a resource-confined area. It does not matter what the resource envelope is; it will always be confined. If we use resource to service the very laudable aims of the amendment, it will take resource and money away from another area.
Dr Evans
Would my hon. Friend speculate on a question that I hope will be answered by the hon. Member for Winchester? It is about the evidence base behind choosing six months instead of 12. GPs would do learning disability reviews every year, for example, and it is an annual thing with asthma and in similar areas. Is the hon. Member for Winchester aware of an evidence base for why it should be six months? There may not be one—often these can be arbitrary, in terms of just giving a clinical judgment—but I wonder whether there is a specific reason for choosing to reduce the period between reviews to six months.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend attributes to me a level of clairvoyance that I do not possess, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Winchester or the hon. Member for Guildford will pick up that point.
The resource implications are not just about the funding. They are about increased workload and the pressure put on the professions and services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, the amendment would divert attention away from delivering care, if it is not balanced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is right to ask, “Why six months?” Why not nine months, eight months or any other period? Is there a clinical basis for six months?
Jen Craft
On a small point of clarification, the six-month criteria are based on the current NHS guidance around CETRs. It is loose guidance; it is not statutory. The reason that it is six months as opposed to 12 months is that that would bring us closer in line with the guidance.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for her helpful intervention. If that is correct, I will draw my comments on that point to a close.
Amendment 6 concerns CETR frequency. It seeks to change the timetabling of these reviews. The same issues, both positive and negative, run through it as in amendment 3.
Amendment 7 would strengthen the legal obligation on integrated care boards and local authorities by requiring them to implement recommendations from the care, education and treatment reviews rather than merely considering them. That would ensure that review outcomes lead to concrete action and improved care. I do not think that anyone in the Committee could possibly disagree with that point. It would lead to greater accountability and would ensure that CETR recommendations are not ignored or delayed. That would clearly improve outcomes, because it would increase the likelihood that patients receive timely and appropriate care.
The amendment would also introduce stronger legal clarity. By removing “must have regard to” and replacing it with
“have a duty to carry out”,
it would remove ambiguity around the responsibilities of the ICBs and local authorities, supporting the rights-based care and the principles of transparency and enforceability in service provision that we all support.
I hope that the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford will be able to clarify the problem of resource pressures, which applies to all these amendments. Local authorities and ICBs may struggle to implement all the recommendations due to funding or capacity constraints. What would be the legal sanction for ICBs and local authorities if, through no “fault” of their own—although one might argue that they should have the necessary resources in place—they genuinely do not have the resources to implement all the recommendations? I would hope that such a sanction did not put them into further financial difficulty.
The reduction in flexibility concerns me. It may limit professional discretion in cases in which recommendations are impractical or outdated. It may require new systems for monitoring and enforcement, and if recommendations are not implemented it could increase the likelihood of legal challenges.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Member is going into some detail on these amendments. There is a duty where EHCPs are in place. Local authorities have had their funding cut over many years, so they have found it difficult to meet their EHCP obligations for the many children with SEND needs. Is there not a similar risk that the amendments will put duties on local authorities that they will not be able to meet unless they have sufficient resources? There must be some flexibility as well as duty on local authorities and the NHS to balance their duties and responsibilities with resources.
Gregory Stafford
I will do my best, Mr Vickers. The hon. Lady raises some good points. She made a slightly party political point, but I will forgive her because I made one earlier. Maybe that is our party politicking done for the day.
As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for SEND, I recognise the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I would be surprised if there were any hon. Member on this Committee who did not recognise her point. Across the piece, there is a significant problem with the process and the funding of EHCPs. I look to the Minister; I know it is not his responsibility, but I understand that the Government are introducing something around EHCPs.
I will draw my comments to a close, but I ask the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford to address those concerns.
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I remind all Members to switch their electronic devices to silent. We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Threshold Requirements
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 14, in schedule 4, page 98, line 20, at end insert—
“(d) the home ground threshold requirement (see paragraph 4A)”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 15, schedule 4, page 99, line 41, at end insert—
“Home ground
4A (1) The home ground threshold requirement is met, in relation to a club, if the club—
(a) has security of tenure over a home ground for at least the minimum period; and
(b) the home ground is suitable for the club's use for footballing purposes.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), the minimum period is 20 years, or such other period as the IFR may determine in respect of a particular club (where there are compelling reasons why it should be shortened).
(3) In determining whether subsection (1)(b) is satisfied in respect of a club, the IFR shall have regard to the specified competition and league in which a club plays and whether the facilities satisfy the requirements set out by the relevant competition organiser(s), as well as any other factors that it deems relevant.
(4) In this paragraph 5, “home ground” shall have the meaning given to it in section 46(10)(a).”
This amendment specifies what constitutes the home ground threshold requirement.
Mr Betts
It is a pleasure to be back with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
This might be termed the Dejphon Chansiri clause—though there are a number of those as we go through the Bill, and they could also apply to other owners of football clubs who have over the years behaved in ways that we might find unacceptable.
Within the Bill—and credit to my hon. Friend the Minister for this—there are clear requirements for clubs wanting to move grounds to properly consult and demonstrate that there are good footballing reasons to do so. There will occasionally be good reasons, when clubs should move as it is in their commercial and footballing interests to do so.
The problem with the Bill as it stands, however, which I have talked to my hon. Friend about on a number of occasions—she is probably fed up of hearing me on the subject—is where the owner has divested the ground separate from ownership of the club. The ownership of the ground is often therefore in a different place and with a different company. It is often, as in the case of Sheffield Wednesday, owned by the same person as the club, but in a different format, so the club could be sold but could be left with no ground.
There probably would not be many people who would want to buy a club in that situation, but we can see the possibilities for owners who do not have the best intentions to do things that are not acceptable. That has been starkly illustrated in the last two weeks, as supporters at Hillsborough have got angrier and angrier with the chairman and he has now gone on record on social media to say, “If you keep on protesting, I can find better things to do with this ground and make more money by building a supermarket or housing”. He has actually put that in writing and said it, so I think we have to cover off those situations. With Sheffield Wednesday, I think the club has a lease on the ground and he would be legally challenged if he tried to do that, but the fact is that owners will try many things to maximise their personal financial interests.
Coming back to the content and intention of the Bill, it is right we are going to have a licensing system; we will come on to that in more detail in due course. The intention is that to get a licence, the owner has to show that they are a fit and proper person and demonstrate that they can run the club financially. If it is proper that the owner has to show that they have the financial resources to run the club, surely they need to show that they have a ground to play on. This amendment is almost as simple as that.
The English Football League rules as they are partly cover this issue, because the EFL requires clubs to demonstrate they have the 20-year use of a ground as part of their conditions. There is an overlap between what the regulator’s powers are going to be and what the leagues do, but we want to make sure there are no gaps and that we cover off those with bad intentions. I am sure Mr Chansiri has the best of intentions—perhaps for himself and his family, I hasten to add—but nevertheless it is also true of clubs like Derby and Charlton and others, and we have seen in the past the sad case of Wimbledon, having to move halfway across the country because the owners got rid of their ground, Plough Lane.
We saw Brighton wandering homeless around the country for many years when the Goldstone Ground, which I remember going to several times, was sold for a supermarket there. Mr Chansiri is obviously following in those footsteps. That left the club in an awful situation. Let us not go there again; let us anticipate what might go wrong and put measures in place to stop it. That is what I am trying to do with my amendments. Even if the Minister cannot accept the precise wording, I hope that she will, at least, understand and recognise the problems that could exist, which need addressing at this stage.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to speak on day three—is it day three? Time flies when you’re having fun!—of this Bill Committee.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has explained in quite lengthy detail the aims of the amendment; I will not repeat what he has said, because it is his amendment, but I have great sympathy with his arguments. Examples, as he says, include Derby, Sheffield Wednesday, Coventry, Wimbledon—for us slightly older football fans—and of course my home club, Charlton, where as I understand it the person who owned the club two owners ago retains ownership of both the stadium—The Valley—and the training ground.
That creates a number of challenges for clubs, not only on the playing side, but behind the scenes and on the academy side. It is a real issue in football. The hon. Member highlighted some of the tensions it causes, particularly with fans, and the great uncertainty about the future of the game and the participation of those clubs. It is always extremely disappointing and frustrating when a small number of owners clearly do not have the best long-term intentions for the club or the community that they serve.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendment and how it might work if it is agreed to. I would also like to understand how it would work for good owners who look to invest in their communities and grounds, and who ensure that clubs have new stadia, for example. The most obvious example, going into the new season, is Everton’s new stadium. We in the Opposition do not want to restrict clubs from increasing capacity and investing in communities around the country; I am sure that we will see a lot more of that, going forward, as clubs seek to increase their revenues and the capacity of stadia. Nevertheless, I have great sympathy for the arguments made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I would like to make a declaration of interest as a member and former chair of the RamsTrust. The history of Derby County and its football stadia has been raised by both the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. In 2003, three owners bought the club for £1 each and decided to sell it to a company based in Panama. We then had to lease it back for £1 million a year. It took years to bring the club and its stadia back together. More recently, under Mel Morris, the club and its stadia were again separated. It was only this summer that they were brought back under one legal ownership, thanks to the new owner, David Clowes.
As a fan of a club that has moved from the old Baseball Ground to Pride Park, I believe the shadow Minister is entirely right that clubs must be able to move stadium. That is absolutely clear. However, it is also clear that, for many fans, the stadium is part and parcel of the community and the way of life. What I would give to be able to go back to the Baseball Ground and relive my childhood! I cannot overstate how important an emotional attachment to the stadium is. It is impossible, in most fans’ minds, to separate the two.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Overnight, I had a message about the City Ground, where Nottingham Forest play—England will be playing there tonight against Senegal in their friendly, which I very much welcome. The message said, “Please make sure that Nottingham Forest continue to play at the City Ground.” There have been discussions about moving elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right that the grounds are central to the community, so does he agree that it is essential that fans have a say in where teams play?
Jon Pearce
Absolutely. As a Derby fan, for once I can probably agree with a Notts Forest fan. It is vital that fans have a say. Fans will always want their clubs to do better and to drive forward, and there will be cases where it is right for a club to move; but where there is malign interest, the fans need to have the ability to keep their stadia and clubs together.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I look forward to day three of Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for the amendments; I am never fed up of hearing from him and I know he is very passionate about this issue.
The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments to ensure that football continues to be played at a club’s home ground. The Bill already has a number of strong protections to safeguard home grounds against reckless sales or ill-thought-out relocations. I will respond to a couple of points made in the debate and will then outline why we will not be accepting the amendments.
Fan consultation was mentioned. Clubs must consult their fans on any plans to change or move their home ground as per the fan engagement threshold condition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, made an important point about how it will sometimes be necessary for clubs to relocate their home ground, for a number of reasons, such as the ground being too small, facilities no longer working or the ground being sold. We recognise that we need flexibility in that approach, but fans will have a say.
For clubs that do not own their stadium or have already sold the stadium, due to the scope of the Bill and existing property law, it is not always possible for home grounds that are not owned by the club to have the same protections as home grounds that are. This point was recognised in the fan-led review. However, alongside the fan engagement requirements, there are also protections under the national planning policy framework for sports grounds and existing assets of community value, and there is work under this Government, as well as an ongoing Law Commission review of security of tenure that has the scope to address sports grounds. Those powers will all work alongside the soft powers and levers of the regulator to look to protect home grounds, as far as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East also referred to the fact that leagues have requirements for tenure, and clubs are prevented from entering the league if they do not meet them. Leagues also have enforceable standards regarding the quality of the grounds. These vary from league to league and can get into the specifics of grass length on matchdays, for example. Given those requirements, we do not feel it is necessary for the regulator to duplicate rules. Instead, it will work alongside the leagues.
It should be noted that clubs may not own their home grounds—I have responded on that point—and therefore they would require the agreement of their landlord to meet the additional licensing requirement we believe that the amendments would lead to. These amendments would place a requirement on clubs to guarantee something that may not be within their control, as well as duplicating pre-existing league requirements for home grounds.
We recognise that the fan-led review recommended that the Government explore the viability of introducing security of tenure property rights for football clubs. I hope I have explained why we do not feel we can do that.
The Law Commission is now in the process of reviewing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, including an assessment of security of tenure for all commercial properties, including football clubs. Following the review, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider the recommendations and publish a full response.
For those reasons, I am not able to accept my hon. Friend’s amendments and would ask that he withdraws them.
Mr Betts
I am still not quite sure why my amendments would cause so many problems. I understand the difficulty where a club does not actually own the ground but leases it, but the amendment is about security of tenure. There does not have to be ownership; it could be a secure lease, as the English Football League requires, for a 20-year period. That is implied by the amendment.
I was not quite sure what the Minister was saying about how the review by the Law Commission and implementation by MHCLG Ministers would secure the position for football clubs, and what else is being looked at in terms of the planning framework. Is she able to say any more on those points to get on the record what further safeguards might be in place?
Stephanie Peacock
On the point in the amendments about 20 years, we appreciate that not all the leagues go that far, but we think that the point is addressed by the league rules. On the consultation by MHCLG, it might be helpful if I ask my counterpart there to write to my hon. Friend and to share that letter with the Committee, because that ongoing work falls in that Department.
Mr Betts
The Minister often completely convinces me—on this occasion, she goes a little way towards being convincing. I want to read what MHCLG is going to say. In the end, it is not how we do it, but what we achieve in terms of the safety and security of grounds for the fans. That is what this is about. If what MHCLG is going to do moves us in that direction, as the Minister indicates it will, I am happy to await that correspondence from it before pushing this further. I hope that we can get a response from MHCLG Ministers before Report—if the Minister could encourage them to write in that time period, it would be helpful.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a disappointment that I am not able to convince my hon. Friend fully. Not all of what he asks is in my gift, but I commit to the Committee that I will do my very best to get a response from the Department before Report, and if possible earlier.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 16—Duty to consult fans on political statements—
“(1) A regulated club may not publish any political statements, political opinions, or issue an items with party political connotations unless it has taken reasonable steps to establish that such statements, opinions or items are supported by the majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales.
(2) A regulated club may not permit any officers or employees, when acting in an official capacity, of the club to engage in political activities or publish political statements or wear any item with political links unless it has taken reasonable steps to establish that such activities, statements, or items are supported by a majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales.”
This new clause would give fans a say on the political positions adopted by regulated football clubs.
Mr French
Amendment 104 would amend schedule 4 to insert
“the club’s political statements and positions”,
to ensure that clubs have to engage their fans on any political statements that the club might adopt. New clause 16 introduces a duty to consult fans on political statements and is an expansion of what that means in practice. As everyone can see the amendment paper, I will move on to my speech.
Schedule 4 sets out the threshold requirements that a club must meet to be granted a licence by this Government’s regulator. In essence, those are the baseline criteria that every club must pass before the Government allow them to play football. Never before has a Government been involved in deciding who can play football. This is a huge moment for English football, its governance and, most importantly, its fans. On the face of it, few would argue against the principle of minimum standards, but as is so often the case with regulation, the devil lies in the detail. In this case, the sheer breadth and flexibility that the Bill hands to the Government’s regulator raise real and pressing concerns.
I start with a central and unarguable point: clubs must be well run. No one disputes that, and thankfully, the vast majority of clubs in the country are. However, we have seen hard-working communities let down by reckless owners and weak governance—from Bury and Derby to the recent struggles at Reading, which the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned. The purpose of this legislation should be to help to protect footballing communities better and to ensure that all clubs are not only sustainable, but rooted, responsible and resilient. However, there is a clear difference between ensuring prudence and exercising control over a club.
My concern, and that of many clubs and fans, is that schedule 4 risks crossing that line. Under paragraphs 2 to 7 of schedule 4, the Government’s regulator is empowered to set requirements for financial resources, suitable governance structures, appropriate corporate plans and the ability to comply with all relevant obligations. On the surface that might seem sensible, but the provisions are broad, vaguely defined and, in practice, leave almost every detail to be filled in by a politically led regulator at a later date via licence conditions.
Let us take paragraph 4, for example, which sets out:
“The fan engagement threshold requirement is met, in relation to a club, if the club has adequate and effective means by which—
(a) the club consults its fans about the relevant matters, and
(b) the club takes the views of its fans into account in making decisions”.
However, it does not tell us what constitutes “adequate” or “effective”. Can the Minister tell us what those terms mean, or when we can expect to be told? Who defines those terms? Is this another instance of the regulator being able to set its own definitions, terms of reference and standards? Paragraph 3(2)(c) states that the Government’s regulator must have regard to a club’s “corporate governance arrangements”. I ask the Minister: what does that actually mean? We are not told, and again it is not clear. Does it mean formal board structures, independent non-executive directors and complying with the UK corporate governance code, or something else entirely? Could the Minister please clarify that for the Committee?
We fear that this schedule hands a blank cheque to the regulator to determine how football clubs, from Premier League giants to National League sides, must structure their affairs, able to coerce them into restructuring their club to fit a narrow regulatory framework that has not been voted for by the fans of any club. This is a serious transfer of power from clubs and their owners to a Government body, and we must ask: is it proportionate? Is it justified?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Would this new clause preclude the owner or chairman, or some other executive officer or member of staff, of a football club from standing for election? I can think of one example: a former chairman of my club Southampton, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He stood for the Referendum party in the Cotswolds in 1997, shortly after he had become the chairman of Southampton football club, and he is rumoured to be joining those on the Conservative Benches soon. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would be against that sort of thing.
Mr French
I will try to stick to the footballing part of the question and not stray into the transfer market, which I believe opens today or tomorrow. When we have people camped outside Conservative Campaign Headquarters on deadline day, I will know that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth has sent them there. In all seriousness, what we are looking to do is to talk about representations made by a club in an official capacity rather than a personal capacity. I think that there is an important distinction with what a person does in their own time. What was the party—the Referendum party? The hon. Member for Cheltenham is showing his age.
Max Wilkinson
Some would regard wearing rainbow laces for Pride as a political statement. In the hon. Member’s ideal world of football governance, would a club have to go to a referendum of its fans to work out whether its players and the club could wear rainbow laces for Pride, for example? Would that not be more pointless bureaucracy?
Mr French
We are not suggesting a referendum. We are saying that fans should be involved in the decision-making process. There is a debate around Pride and other issues, but that is not the point we are trying to make. We are trying to make sure that football clubs, wherever possible, stick to the game and that fans have a say. I have already said that we are not trying to bind clubs and prevent them from addressing initiatives that are often taken by the leagues rather than just individual clubs, but we are trying to ensure that fans have a say.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member believe that this would include involving fans in political-financial decisions like that made by West Ham United, who donated to the Conservative party? Should fans be involved in that type of decision, or is it a decision that the board should just be able to make?
Mr French
I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am not aware of the financial example that she gives—genuinely I am not—so it would not be appropriate for me to comment, but the crossover between politics and football is one that we have to acknowledge, regardless of party allegiance. The vast majority of fans, when they go to the football at the weekend or midweek, go to watch football and in many ways to switch off from the harsher realities of life. I am personally a big believer in politics staying out of sport, as I have said on a number of occasions.
Amanda Martin
Just for the record on those donations, in 2016 the club contributed £12,500 to the Conservative party, and in 2022, it contributed £9,000.
Mr Betts
This is a serious point, because football is about our communities. It reflects what goes on in our communities and tries to improve it. Football has a very good record of tackling racism in this country, right from the top, with the Football Association and the leagues, through to the clubs. Young kids walk on the pitch and there are “kick racism out of football” banners, and football has done good work on homophobia as well. Is the shadow Minister saying that all those matters should be put to a club’s fans in a referendum, or would we expect a club to do those things as a matter of good practice?
Mr French
I completely appreciate the hon. Member’s point. As he highlighted, clubs have done a lot of this good work themselves, so I do not believe that the Government or their regulator need to dictate on terms where clubs have that good practice already. My new clause tries to draw a line so that fans will have a say on any such issues and, in particular, on contentious ones. I do not personally believe that kicking racism out of football is a contentious issue. The vast majority of fans would absolutely support that, and have supported for many years the work that that campaign has done.
Max Wilkinson
New clause 16 specifically says that the club must establish that there is support from
“a majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales.”
That is really difficult to establish. Committee members will have been in football grounds and heard a number of opinions expressed in vociferous terms from the stands. I challenge anyone to say that it is possible to establish that a majority of fans either support or do not support any kind of political statement that might be made by a club. I just do not think the new clause works.
Mr French
I am not sure what to say about that, but the hon. Member can have his say when the Committee votes on the matter shortly. He has stated his belief.
In recent years, we have seen clubs wade into contentious debates, sometimes with noble intentions, without any formal engagement with their supporter base. Whether we are talking about a statement on a foreign conflict, domestic legislation or ideological campaigns, such interventions can divide opinion and risk alienating the people who pay their money, wear the shirt and keep their club alive. Nobody is arguing that clubs should be barred from speaking on social matters, but they should be expected to act with consent, not presumption. Fans should not wake up to find their club being used as a platform for views that they had no part in shaping. The new clause would not restrict freedom of expression; rather, it would enhance democratic accountability in football.
Mr French
I will make some progress because I am conscious of the Chairman’s time. The new clause would ensure that where a club proposes to adopt a political stance not directly related to football or the club’s commercial interests, it must first engage with its supporters through an appropriate consultation mechanism. This is about strengthening the bond between club and community, not weakening it. New clause 16 would be a simple safeguard to protect the cultural neutrality of our national game, and to ensure that football remains a source of unity, not division.
The cumulative effect of the Bill’s provisions, as they stand, is that they give the Government’s regulator enormous latitude to impose an ever-growing set of compliance obligations on clubs with little oversight or scrutiny from Parliament or fans. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that clubs could find themselves constantly revising governance arrangements, redrafting financial documents and hiring compliance staff simply to keep up with the regulator’s demands—demands that are funded by the clubs. That is a concern for the entire football pyramid, but it is a particular burden for the lower leagues, where administrative budgets are tight and every pound spent on compliance is a pound not spent on the pitch or in the community.
Let us be clear: good regulation is about balance. It is about ensuring standards without stifling initiative, protecting clubs without disempowering them and learning from the past without writing off the future. There are a number of ways in which the Government could help to strike that balance.
First, we ask the Government to publish a clear definition of what each of the threshold requirements entails. It is not good enough to provide for “appropriate” arrangements. The regulator should be guarded by Parliament’s intent, not left to interpret sweeping language.
Secondly, we must ensure transparency and account-ability. If the regulator decides to change the threshold requirements—say, by requiring new climate disclosure standards or mandating support or representation on the board—that is a major policy shift. We believe that, as a sovereign Parliament responsible for passing this legislation, we should be able to scrutinise and, if necessary, prevent the Government’s regulator from making law by regulation. It should come back to the House, not be slipped through in the shadows.
Finally, we must keep a watchful eye on the cost burden. As we argued in previous debates, the Government’s regulator will not be cost-free. It is expected to fund itself through levies and fees imposed on clubs, so every layer of compliance—every extra form, every extra process —has a price tag. That price will ultimately be paid by the very fans we are trying to protect.
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The shadow Minister is talking about cost, yet here is another proposal that would add more cost and is effectively unworkable. This Bill is in Committee at the moment. If a club saw the changes here and wanted to lobby us to say, “We are not happy with this,” how on earth would it do that if it had to consult its fans? How do we define a political move by a club? It just does not work, does it?
Mr French
I hear the argument that hon. Gentleman is making, and he will be able to vote on the amendment shortly. Again, I appreciate your time, Sir Jeremy.
It is a shame that the Government would not accept our earlier amendment to ensure that fans know the true impact of the regulator on the price of their tickets. Football is not a normal business. It is a great national institution built on history, local pride and community loyalty. However, that does not mean it should be run by quangos. Clubs should be encouraged to improve their governance, not be coerced into uniformity. They should be supported to succeed, not strangled by red tape.
Schedule 4 is one of the most important parts of the Bill, because it defines the gate through which every club must pass before they can be allowed to simply play football. We owe it to those clubs and their fans to ensure that the gateway is firm but fair, principled but practical, and clear, not vague. That is why we will be seeking further assurances from the Minister that the Government’s regulator’s use of these powers will be proportionate, transparent and subject to proper scrutiny. Without that, we risk creating a regime that may prevent future failures, but at the cost of stifling ambition, independence and the very lifeblood of our national game.
The Chair
I should make it clear that it is not my time; it is the Committee’s time, and the Committee can use it in any way it wishes within the confines of the programme order. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has slid ever so slightly into a debate about schedule 4 more broadly. I have not intervened to stop him, but I know he will not want to repeat all those points when we get to the debate on schedule 4 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin with a couple of brief points in response to the shadow Minister. However, as Sir Jeremy has just outlined, some of the shadow Minister’s points relate to schedule 4 more broadly, which falls under group 38, and the points on fan engagement fall under group 48. I will make some quick comments, but I am happy to take some points away and elaborate further when we come to those groups.
The shadow Minister asked a specific question about what constitutes “adequate” and “effective”. The Bill is intentionally designed to allow for each club to have its own approach to fan engagement. That is why a specific form of fan engagement is not mandated in order to meet the benchmark of adequate and effective. Instead, we expect that the regulator will look at a number of factors to assess fan engagement at clubs, and publish guidance for clubs on what will be expected. Across all of that, the regulator will look to uphold proportionality, taking into account the size and make-up of each club and what is appropriate. We will revisit those issues when we move on to groups 38 and 48. Of course, the debate on ticket pricing has been well rehearsed. This Government added an obligation to consult fans on ticket prices, which will strengthen the fan voice on that issue.
Amendment 104 seeks to add a requirement for a club to consult fans on any political statements or positions that it makes or takes, and new clause 16 seeks to mandate fan approval prior to any political statement or political activity being made by the club, its players or staff. It is not the place of a statutory regulator tasked with financial sustainability to limit or add additional approval processes for political speech or action. Clubs and leagues here and abroad take positions on a variety of issues that could be deemed political, and that is their right.
However, it is not appropriate for an independent statutory regulator to take subjective positions, or opine on the positions of others, in the same way—especially not a regulator tasked only with a tight mission of financial sustainability, to which political statements bear no relevance. It may be that clubs wish to consult their fans in this regard as part of their regular fan engagement. We would not expect the regulator to have any issue with that, but it is not something that it will require of clubs.
The Bill is intended to ensure that fans have a voice in key decisions regarding their club, but we must ensure that this is proportionate. That is why we have not listed every possible issue on which clubs should engage their fans in minute detail. We also do not want to inhibit the free speech of players or any representatives of the club. It is also notable that many sporting personalities have used the attention that the sport gets to protest relevant issues that concern them. We do not want to inhibit the free speech of any of those individuals.
Max Wilkinson
Is the Minister concerned about inhibiting the free speech of Members of the House of Lords, for example Baroness Brady, who made significant and very valuable comments in the debate on the Bill in the other place, and then repeatedly made similar statements in the press and other media? She is, of course, a representative of West Ham and the Conservative party, as was noted by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North. Would we seek to retain her freedom of speech and freedom of expression by voting down new clause 16?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman puts his point on the record. We had a full debate in the other place, in which many Members took part.
Ultimately, the amendments have no relevance to the regulator’s purpose and will not help it to deliver its objectives. Rather, they would serve only to stifle freedom of speech. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 4, page 99, line 34, leave out “crest” and insert “badge.”
My amendment raises a point that may seem technical, but I believe it is important if the Bill is to respect the history and traditions of our great national game. There is reference in the proposed legislation to the “crest” of a football club, but as any student of heraldry or loyal football supporter will tell us, that term is often misunderstood. In fact, the correct term in almost every case should be the “badge”. A crest is a specific heraldic element part of a full coat of arms traditionally appearing above a shield and regulated under royal prerogative through the College of Arms.
That distinction may seem academic, but it is not. When clubs are challenged on their intellectual property, or when supporters are concerned about the commercialisation or alteration of the symbols that represent generations of loyalty, it matters enormously that we use the correct terminology. We are not just talking about branding. We are talking about something deeply symbolic: an identity that lives on scarves and gravestones, and in the hearts of whole communities. My noble Friend Lord Parkinson raised this point in the Lords with great care and I believe he was right to do so. He proposed that the Bill use the term “badge”, not “crest”, to ensure accuracy and to avoid the legal and cultural confusion that can arise when the wrong term is used.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Another reason to include the word “badge”, my hon. Friend would presumably agree, is not only that is it technically correct, but it is a word used in football. It is a word that fans use. It is always helpful if legal documents in a Bill can reflect both technical and everyday wording. If the two are the same, that seems like an obvious answer.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I must admit, as a long-term football fan, that I have never heard a player say that he kissed the crest of his club when celebrating a goal. The footballing term is as accurate as the legal one, as he highlights.
This may seem a modest amendment, but it speaks to something bigger: the importance of precision, respect for history and an understanding of football not just as a product but as a tradition. If we are going to regulate the game, let us do it properly with the right words and the right respect.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Member’s amendment follows the extensive debate regarding heraldic terminology in the other place. I can reassure him that the Government have worked closely with the College of Arms to ensure that the term “crest” is used consistently with heraldic law, and with the FA to ensure accuracy and cohesion with industry norms, as the term “crest” is the key term within its existing heritage rules. The Government amendments made in the other place make sure the legislation remains in step with both the FA and heraldic law, and that is in addition to changes to the explanatory notes, to further clarify the point.
Although the word “crest” is used colloquially in the industry, “crests” have a very specific meaning in heraldic law. Crests can only be granted by the College of Arms and only a select few clubs have been granted one. For that reason, the legislation refers to crests, but also needs to capture other clubs and circumstances. That is why the Bill uses “emblem”.
When making these changes, the Government explored the use of “badge” instead of “emblem”. However, it was felt that “badge” would risk unintentionally only capturing the image on shirts. In examples such as Arsenal or Liverpool, the shirt features only one element of the club’s emblem, such as the cannon or the liver bird. In those instances, “badge” might capture only those elements and thereby not deliver on the policy intent of protecting the heritage associated with the entire emblem. Given those comments, I ask that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Schedule 4 sets out the three threshold requirements—financial resources, non-financial resources and fan engagement—that clubs will have to meet in order to be granted a full operating licence. As I set out last week, to apply for a licence, a club must submit a business plan and a personnel statement. These are basic requirements that any club should be able to complete. As I have made clear, the regulator will support them with their applications wherever needed.
Before discussing the requirements for a full operating licence, I would like to correct a point I made last week regarding the hypothetical scenario where a club is not granted a provisional licence. I want to clarify that once a provisional licence is in force, a club must have a licence to be able to play in a specified competition.
As I have set out, to receive a provisional licence, a club must submit a business plan and a personnel statement. We think these are basic requirements that any club should be able to complete, and the regulator will support them with their applications where needed.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the two criteria of the business plan and the personnel statement. I thought from our discussions last week that giving the regulator any form of information that the regulator so requested was an additional condition.
Stephanie Peacock
The two I mentioned are the basic points. The regulator has the ability to ask for further information should they want it. I think I gave the example that if the regulator is unsure about the source of funds, or whether there is enough, it could ask for more information. That will be at the discretion of the regulator—we had a well-rehearsed debate on that point last week.
We think that the requirements for a provisional licence are basic requirements that any club should be able to complete. As I was really keen to stress in the debate last week, the regulator will be keen to work with clubs to do everything it can to help them to meet those requirements.
The regulator needs to be satisfied that a club will be able to meet the mandatory licence conditions and duties on clubs once it has been granted a licence. This is a forward-looking “would comply” test. The expectation is that the provision of information and documentation, as well as the engagement with clubs as part of the application process, will be sufficient to satisfy the regulator. It should be straightforward for all clubs to obtain a provisional licence. Once they are in the regulatory system, a club will have time to improve standards up to the necessary requirements for a full licence, with the support of the regulator as needed.
Mr French
One of the points we were slightly unclear about when we had the discussion of provisional licences before was what would happen if a club decided it did not want to apply for a provisional licence. There are several clubs that are very publicly concerned about the regulator. What would happen if they were to form, say, a union and go against the regulator and refuse to apply for a provisional licence? How would that work in practice? Would they be kicked out of the league?
Stephanie Peacock
The Government envisage that licence refusal or the revocation of a licence would be in extreme circumstances, but there will come a point when the regulatory system switches on and a licence will be needed in order to play. That is the point that I am keen to clarify. Yes, ultimately a club can be stopped from playing if it does not apply for a licence, but I stress that, with the provisional licence, it does not have to be meeting it; it has to be willing to meet it.
The regulator will do everything it can to work with clubs, because it is in no one’s interests for a club to be unable to play—that would be completely contrary to the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to improve club sustainability once the regime is in force. There must be a consequence for extreme cases, which is the point that the shadow Minister is making, but the club must be given every opportunity to meet the standards if it has failed to do so. Once a club is licensed, the regulator will have a range of other escalating enforcement tools. We will come on to enforcement, so I will not elaborate on that now—I do not want to test your patience, Sir Jeremy.
I turn now to the threshold requirements in schedule 4. There are three main areas of the regulator’s licensing regime that build on the freestanding duties in the mandatory conditions. Meeting the threshold requirements will mean that the regulator is satisfied that the club can currently operate sustainably in its financial, non-financial and fan-engagement areas and will continue to do so.
Although the threshold requirements are principles set in legislation, what each club must do to meet the threshold will not be the same. For example, what constitutes appropriate financial resources for a Premier League club will be very different to a League One club. A club may already meet the threshold requirements, for example, through naturally good operations or by complying with competition laws. In such cases, the regulator will not need to directly intervene. But if not, the regulator can apply discretionary licence conditions to bring the club up to the required threshold, which was the point that the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to.
The structure will allow for a proportionate, light-touch system, with requirements tailored to clubs. The threshold requirement for financial resources means that clubs need an appropriate level of financial resources to support their long-term financial sustainability. The regulator will be able to consider any relevant factors to determine whether the club’s financial resources are appropriate relative to its circumstances and the risks it faces. For example, that might include which competition the club competes in, its financial relationship with its owners, and the wider economic context that it operates in. In particular, the regulator should take into account the club’s financial plan, and its contingency plan for dealing with financial shocks.
In essence, a club must have the financial resources to match the business it is operating—and plans to operate. If a club does not have the finances to back up its plans, or does not have plans in place for how it would manage foreseeable risk, it would need to do one of two things: either demonstrate that it has access to the necessary funding, or reconsider its plans and risk appetite. If it does not, then the regulator can impose discretionary licence conditions to bring the club’s finances back in line with its operations and risk level.
For non-financial resources, a similar threshold requirement and process applies. Non-financial resources could include things such as internal control systems and policies, as well as the information and people that a club has available to it. Although not financial in nature, these are important resources for any well-run club and need to be adequate. When assessing whether these resources are appropriate, the regulator might consider the skills and experience of senior managers, its plans, and its corporate governance arrangements.
The financial and non-financial resources of a club both need to be appropriate. For example, a club needs to have the financial means to back up its plans, and on the non-financial side it needs to have a contingency plan and risk-management processes to mitigate potential financial shocks.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Is it the Government’s expectation that financial and non-financial resources will be proportionate to the size of the club?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an important point; it will be proportionate. I have met with all the leagues a number of times, and this was of particular concern to the National League. It will be proportionate, and the regulator will take that approach when dealing with the different clubs and leagues.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments about proportionality; we will look to review that as the Bill goes forward. One question I have is about how the regulator will interact with the existing rules. The most obvious ones that come to mind are the financial fair play rules that are already in existence in the Premier League. What analysis of, and crossover with, the existing league investigations and restrictions to clubs will there be?
Stephanie Peacock
Those will be an issue for the leagues; where the leagues have rules, clubs will continue to comply with them. That is not something that the regulator will be involved with. Where there are league rules, that is for the leagues to enforce. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to outline that further.
Mr French
If the Minister could outline that further, it would be really helpful. At the end of the day, we are keen to ensure that there is no confusion in the regulations for clubs, nor any duplication of purpose for the regulator. We would like to understand how that will work in practice, and I would appreciate that in writing.
Lincoln Jopp
I am sure that the Minister realises that one of the variants in a club’s business plan is whether its matches are selected for being televised. It is an incredibly haphazard process and difficult to predict, because they are decided within season. What guidance will the Minister give, as the appointer of the regulator, as to reasonable assumptions in the business plan regarding expected television revenue in season?
Stephanie Peacock
I think that it is an issue for the leagues, but I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman. I will check that point, but I am pretty confident that it would be left to the leagues. It is similar to what they deal with now. I will write to the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Old Bexley and Sidcup further to their points, because it is helpful to get clarity in writing. Where there are league rules, they are for the leagues to enforce, but I will add further detail in writing, if that is helpful.
I would like to move on to the final point, about the requirement for clubs to adequately and effectively consult and consider the views of fans when making decisions relating to certain specified matters. Those relevant matters are listed in the Bill and cover key “off pitch” decisions, which the fan-led review highlighted as important to fans across specified leagues. The Government have made it explicit that that will include ticket pricing, as mentioned already, which is an issue of importance for many fans.
The threshold requirement is designed to work in tandem with the fan consultation mandatory licence condition. Through that condition, all clubs must regularly consult with a representative group of supporters to discuss the relevant matters listed in the Bill. That must be in place by the time a club is granted a provisional licence. Appropriate fan engagement will look different at every club and will partly be based on the size and complexity of the club’s fanbase, as I touched on in my earlier contribution.
James Naish
This point is slightly tangential, but it is related to fan engagement. England are playing Senegal in Nottingham later today. With the support of the FA, we have run a competition for primary and secondary school children to design a new England shirt. Would the Minister be happy to congratulate Albie, Dylan, Joshua and Mikey on their contributions?
The Chair
Order. That is not slightly tangential; it is very tangential. Just a brief answer, Minister, and then we must return to the schedule.
Stephanie Peacock
With the indulgence of the Chair, I will speak to the hon. Gentleman after today’s sitting. I would like to write to those who took part in such a wonderful competition.
I would like to complete my remarks by talking briefly about the threshold requirement, which has been designed to allow the regulator to recognise the inherent variation between clubs, while ensuring that standards are raised where necessary. It also allows the regulator to impose discretionary licence conditions on clubs relating to fan consultation.
Fans are the foundation of any club, and putting in place a supporter engagement threshold requirement recognises that they must be consulted on key decisions that affect their club. The Government have also looked to protect fan views, even in the worst-case scenario of a club entering administration. That includes the addition of a requirement to continue taking the views of fans into account when making decisions in insolvency proceedings, as long as the club retains the power to make decisions about the relevant matters.
Mr Betts
On a general point, when we talk about fans and fan groups, who defines who they are and the relevant ones? That is a really important point. Coming back to our club, Sheffield Wednesday, we have more than 20 different fan groups. That is also true of other clubs. Talk to the EFL, because it often struggles to engage or know who actually represents fans, as opposed to two or three people who have got together to name themselves as a group. How are we going to deal with that? As fans become an integral part of the process, who decides who the relevant groups are?
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that point. We will come on to discuss that in relation to schedule 5, and I will give a fuller response then.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 19
revocation and cessation of operating licence
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 106, in clause 19, page 13, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) inviting the club to make representations about the proposed revocation, and
(d) specifying the means by which, and the period within which, such representations must be made, which must be a period of not less than one month beginning with the day on which the notice under subsection (3) is given.”
This amendment allows clubs to make representations about the proposed revocation of their operating licence.
Clause 19 concerns the revocation and cessation of an operating licence granted to football clubs. That is understandably a crucial provision that goes to the heart of how the Government’s new regulator will exercise its most serious power, the ability effectively to remove a club from the regulated football pyramid by taking away its licence to operate. Let me clear from the outset that we support an independent regulator that can intervene when standards are seriously breached but, as with all powers of this kind, the devil is in the detail. Our task in this Committee must be to ensure that the regulator’s powers are proportionate, transparent and accountable.
Clause 19 provides that the regulator may revoke a licence if the club in in breach of licence conditions or if there are grounds to believe that the licence should never have been granted. In principle, that is entirely reasonable, but the consequences of revocation, for clubs, fans and communities, are potentially devastating. This is not the revocation of a licence to sell alcohol or to host events late into the night; it is the revocation of a licence to participate in the life of a community—in many cases, the cultural soul of a town or city. That power should not be exercised lightly, so I must raise several matters with the Minister.
First, what thresholds and safeguards are in place to ensure that revocation is used only as a last resort? Will the Government’s regulator be required to consider less draconian alternatives—such as conditional compliance periods, fines or a change in ownership—before resorting to the total revocation of a licence? Secondly, what procedural protections exist for clubs facing this threat? As it stands, there is no right of appeal, which is why I tabled amendment 106, which would allow clubs to make representations about the proposed revocation of their operating licence.
These are serious matters. The Government’s regulator is empowered to act in the interests of the game and to uphold high standards of governance, transparency and financial responsibility. But with such powers must come robust safeguards, and that is where the clause as drafted falls short. As it stands, there is no explicit requirement for the regulator to notify a club of its intention to revoke the licence, or to invite the club to make representations, before such action is taken. In effect, the regulator could move straight to revocation, without a formal process that allows the club to defend itself, explain its actions or offer remedial steps. That is not due process, it is not natural justice, and in any other regulated sector such an approach would be wholly unacceptable.
Melanie Onn
The shadow Minister talks about there not being due process, but the Bill talks about a club’s failure being persistent and says that a failure is persistent if it has occurred
“on a sufficient number of occasions for it to be clear that it represents a pattern of behaviour or practice.”
It is not a one-off that results in revocation.
Mr French
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but we still believe that clubs have a right to representation and to appeal, which is what this amendment seeks to put into the Bill.
My amendment would fix the problem. It would require the Government’s regulator, before making any decision to revoke a licence, to provide the club with written notice of its intention to do so, and not just stating that it will be revoked but setting out the reasons and the evidence relied on. The club would then be entitled to respond—to make representations within a reasonable timeframe, to challenge the basis of the proposed revocation and to outline any mitigating circumstances or corrective measures.
Such a mechanism would not just be fair; we believe that it is necessary. The consequences of revocation of an operating licence are profound. It would prevent a club from competing in the regulated pyramid, as has been highlighted already. That would be likely to trigger financial collapse, job losses and irreparable harm to the club’s standing and its local community. Therefore, the decision to revoke must be taken only after the fullest consideration, and that cannot happen if one side is not allowed to speak.
There is a broader point about public confidence in the Government’s new regulator. For it to earn the trust of clubs, fans and the wider footballing ecosystem, it must be seen to operate fairly and transparently. Due process, consultation and the right to be heard before sanctions are imposed are all basic principles of good governance and the basis of justice. By incorporating my amendment in clause 19, we would be helping to enshrine those values at the heart of the regulator’s enforcement powers.
I urge the Committee to consider the precedent being set. If we allow revocations to occur without a statutory right to respond, we risk creating a regulatory regime that is reactive rather than reflective—one that punishes rather than reforms. That would be to the detriment of the game as a whole, particularly if clubs are chucked out or have their licence removed midway through a season. That would cause a much greater ripple across the league system.
Let me be clear: this amendment does not seek to tie the regulator’s hands. It does not require the regulator to delay action indefinitely or to overlook serious misconduct. What it does do is ensure that any action is taken with the full knowledge of the facts and with the benefit of a fair and balanced process. As we have heard already, clubs, especially those in lower leagues, do not have legions of lawyers or vast compliance departments. Despite best intentions, they may make genuine mistakes or fall foul of complex regulations. We must allow them the chance to explain, to engage and, where appropriate, to put things right, before the ultimate sanction is imposed.
This is a measured, sensible and proportionate amendment. It aligns with principles that Members across the House support, and I hope that the Committee will support it. If we are serious about building a strong, fair and sustainable regulatory regime, we must ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done. On my broader concerns about the drafting of the clause, I ask the Minister what transparency will apply in such situations.
Lincoln Jopp
Does my hon. Friend agree that his amendment is very much in the spirit of football? We have seen many injury time winners, when all the odds are stacked against a club, but in the dying moments they manage to rescue an almost impossible situation. So it is not only in the spirit of fairness, but in the spirit of football.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for putting it very poetically. He talks about the spirit of football. I am not sure how many last-minute winners Chelsea have scored over the years, but he might have misbehaved on the terraces with joy and jubilation when it has happened. His description was much nicer than calling it the VAR amendment, which would not have been so popular across the House. His point is well made.
Will the regulator be required to publish clear criteria and case-by-case justifications for any licence revocation, so that Parliament, the press and the public can understand why the decision was taken? What consideration will be given to the fanbase—the loyal supporters who may find their club’s future in jeopardy through no fault of their own? How will we be acting in the interest of fans of English football if we do not have transparency?
We must also bear in mind the risk of regulatory overreach. Such a power as this, unless it is tightly constrained, could inadvertently create uncertainty and instability in the football ecosystem. Clubs, owners and investors must know where they stand. A stable regulatory environment, not a reactive or arbitrary one, is essential if the Government’s new regulator is to command respect, not just fear. I hope the Minister provides more clarity on how her new regulator will apply clause 19 in practice and on what guidance will be issued to ensure that the power of revocation is exercised only with great caution and care. When dealing with a matter as serious as extinguishing the operating licence of a football club, we owe it to the game and to the people who love it to think through every safeguard properly.
Stephanie Peacock
As you say, Sir Jeremy, we will speak in detail about the revocation or suspension of an operating licence when we debate clause 19 stand part, so I will save my detailed remarks for then.
To respond directly to the shadow Minister’s questions, there is an appeals process, and clubs can make representations; I will outline how. I thank him for his amendment, but the Bill already provides sufficient opportunity for a club to make representations ahead of its provisional licence being revoked. If a club persistently fails to meet the test for a full licence, clause 18(4) requires the regulator to give it notice inviting it to make representations.
There is a high bar for the revocation of a provisional licence under clause 19. The regulator must be satisfied of three things: first, that the test for a full operating licence is not met; secondly, that the club in question has persistently and without reasonable excuse failed to take reasonable steps to meet the test; and, finally, that there is no reasonable prospect of the club meeting the test within a reasonable period, even if it is given more time. In the unlikely circumstance that that high threshold is met, clause 18 sets out requirements to notify the club and allow it to make its case one last time. Specifically, if the regulator is minded to revoke a club’s provisional licence, it must give the club notice explaining why and invite it to make representations.
Only after that, if the regulator is still convinced that there is no reasonable prospect that the club will obtain its full licence, even given an extension, it can revoke the club’s provisional licence. In every case, the club will have been given adequate opportunity to make formal representations on the issue, in addition to the informal constructive engagement that we expect the regulator to have with the club regularly throughout this period. It is not necessary or proportionate for the club to be given another opportunity to make further representations as the amendment proposes.
If, after all that, the club believes that the regulator has taken the wrong course of action, there is further recourse through the appeals process. The club will be able to request that fresh decision makers at the regulator reevaluate the decision through an internal review. Alternatively, the club may appeal directly to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. If the tribunal decides to hear the appeal, it will do so on the merits of the case, so it will reconsider the evidence and may substitute its own decision for that of the regulator; it may, therefore, reverse the decision to revoke the club’s licence. That is another way that the regulator can be held to account and its decisions can be scrutinised. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
The Minister has outlined the initial process before revocation is determined by the regulator. As I explained in my lengthy speech, which I will not seek to repeat, the amendment would give clubs a say if they believed a decision reached by the regulator was wrong. The Minister was clear about the tribunal approach if a club is not happy with a decision, but as I have outlined previously, my fear is that clubs will end up spending more time in court than they will focusing on the pitch and on the game. The official Opposition believe that an appeal process at that point would be more beneficial than a legal route.
Stephanie Peacock
As I said, clubs can make representations to the regulator and ask the regulator to look again, and beyond that there is the appeals process. As with all aspects of appeals process, the key considerations are the expertise of the judiciary, the tribunal’s experience and familiarity with the policy, speed and cost. We think the Competition Appeal Tribunal is the best option for balance. It is an internationally well-respected tribunal which offers time and cost-efficient options, with flexible case management to expedite urgent cases and bring in appropriate expertise. We believe that that avenue and the internal review process make adequate provision in the Bill and that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment simply is not needed.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 19 details revocation of a club’s provisional operating licence for failing to progress to a full licence, and a licence ceasing to have effect. For the revocation to occur, the regulator must satisfy itself of three things: first, that the test for a full operating licence is not met; secondly, that the club in question has persistently and without reasonable excuse failed to take reasonable steps to meet the test; and finally, that there is no reasonable prospect of the club meeting the test within a reasonable period, even if given more time. The regulator should engage with the club throughout this period. We expect that, through constructive dialogue, a solution can be found that avoids this drastic step in all but the most serious of cases.
The regulator must notify the club of its decision and provide its reasoning. Revocation must not take place before the end of the current season, to reduce as much as possible the impact on ongoing sporting competitions. A licence automatically ceases to have effect only when a club stops operating a team in specified competitions, the most likely cause being that the club is relegated from the specified competition and is therefore no longer in scope of the regulator.
Mr French
I am trying to get clarity. Again, I will happily accept it in writing if the Minister does not have the answer today. Waiting until the end of the season before revoking a licence is entirely sensible, but what would that mean for relegation and promotion? For example, if a club is mid-table and the regulator decides its licence should be revoked, that will have a direct impact on the competitive nature of the league. Has any thought been put into whether, for example, that may mean only two teams are relegated that season, because one has lost its licence? How might it work in practice?
Stephanie Peacock
Where possible, we want to reduce any impact on ongoing sporting competitions. The hon. Gentleman presents me with a hypothetical scenario. I think it would be best if I respond in writing to him.
Regarding the circumstances when a licence automatically ceases to have effect, it will only happen when the club stops operating a team in specified competition. The most likely cause of that is a club having been relegated and therefore no longer being in scope. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
I will not rehash the debate we have already had on the amendment. We were seeking greater transparency and a greater say for clubs at risk of losing their licence, which, as I have explained, is the ultimate sanction and would cause enormous damage to clubs and the communities in which they operate through job losses, and impact on the game and on fans. I would appreciate the Minister giving more clarity on how this will work in practice. These situations are hypothetical, but realistic, and would have serious consequences for not just the individual clubs, but the leagues and how they operate.
We believe strongly that promotion and relegation should be based on competition on the pitch. However, in the extreme example of a club breaching the licence so significantly that it is revoked, which might more realistically happen at the lower end of the pyramid, we need to have a greater understanding of what that means for relegation. All clubs deserve transparency in that regard. We have seen much speculation in recent years around change of ownership—I will not mention the clubs involved as some of the legal cases are ongoing—what that might mean for relegation and the significant financial consequences it may have for other clubs. It would be greatly appreciated if the Minister provided guidance on that in writing so that all Members can have a greater understanding of how it will work in practice.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister say whether a good licensing regime and, if necessary, revocation of licences would prevent clubs from going into full administration—as in the example of Derby County that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak described—and the knock-on effect of that on supporters, suppliers and the local community? A licensing regime should prevent full administration and be able to deal with problem clubs at a much earlier stage.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend raises an important constituency point. I do not want to comment on particular clubs and predict the action the regulator may or may not take. We hope that the Bill will raise the bar across the board and prevent clubs from getting into difficulty, but I do not want to be drawn on the specifics.
We have been clear that this is not a zero-fail regime. I will endeavour to write to the shadow Minister regarding the complex, but important, hypothetical situation he has proposed.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister committing to that. The example just mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby South needs fleshing out as well, because clubs get into financial difficulty as a matter of course; points are therefore deducted mid-season, as we have seen, or, in the worst cases, the club goes into administration. The tests for the licence are about financial prudence and sustainability, so the hon. Gentleman makes a fair challenge.
What would happen if a club went into administration? Would the regulator seek to change the owner to allow the operating licence to continue, for example, or would the club, having lost the licence, then reapply via a new owner? The consequences would be dramatic. One would automatically assume that a club that no longer had a licence would have to start at the bottom of the football pyramid and come back up again, as we have seen in the past. Can the Minister add clarification of that important example to her letter?
Stephanie Peacock
Absolutely. We will come on to the owners and directors test later in the Bill Committee; perhaps we can explore this further at that point. The one point I would make to the shadow Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South is that the aim of the regulator is always to minimise disruption to ongoing sporting competitions. I will add clarification on that when I write to the shadow Minister about the complex scenario he proposed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Mandatory licence conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause requires the regulator to attach full mandatory licence conditions to the provisional and full operating licences for all licensed clubs. These are basic and fundamental requirements of the whole regime and so apply to all licensed clubs, regardless of their individual circumstances.
The mandatory conditions vary in their aims. They are set out in schedule 5, so we will cover them in more detail, but to summarise briefly, the conditions on financial plans and annual declarations are about ensuring that the regulator has the relevant and timely information it needs to regulate effectively. That includes financial risk assessments, plans for managing financial risks, details on income and expenditure, and contingency plans in the event of a shock such as relegation.
The corporate governance condition introduces basic requirements to report against the club corporate governance code of practice published by the regulator. This reporting mechanism will mean that clubs are transparent about board structures, decision making processes and equality, diversity and inclusion.
The fan consultation condition establishes a baseline level of fan engagement that requires clubs to consult fans on specified matters. This will ensure that clubs have a framework in place to regularly meet and consult a representative group of fans on key strategic matters at the club, and on other issues of interest to supporters. This will work in tandem with the freestanding duties, such as those protecting club heritage and other key areas.
The annual declaration condition requires the club to submit a declaration on any matters that should have previously been notified, or to confirm that there are no such matters. I commend clause 20 to the Committee.
Mr French
As outlined by the Minister, clause 20 requires the IFR to attach four mandatory licence conditions to the each club’s operating licence, whether provisional or full. This includes a requirement for the club to submit a financial plan, either annually or at more frequent intervals. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on how frequent she believes is reasonable; is that semi-annually, for example?
The club must also submit and publish a corporate governance statement explaining how it is applying the IFR’s corporate governance code, and regularly consult its fans. I think we need some clarity about how that will work in practice. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East raised the example of Sheffield Wednesday and multiple fans’ groups claiming to represent the club. I think that that needs some fleshing out so that the regulator is clear about what that consultation looks like. Obviously, that will be different for each individual club, which should, hopefully, know its fans better than anyone else.
Last, there is a requirement to submit an annual declaration of any material changes in circumstances affecting the club. Again, we would argue that that needs to be very clear to clubs, particularly if there is any—
The Chair
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, just so that he is reminded, we will get to the detail of all of this in schedule 5. Clause 20 simply introduces the schedule, so the hon. Gentleman might want to keep some of his powder dry for the schedule 5 debate.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s comments. I will address them in detail when we come to the relevant debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Mandatory Licence Conditions
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in schedule 5, page 103, line 16, at end insert—
“Enforcement
11A An enforcement condition is a condition requiring a club to incorporate and maintain within its Articles of Association (or equivalent constitutional document) provisions which—
(a) require any person in respect of whom the Regulator makes an order under section 43 to—
(i) transfer the shares and/or voting rights which are held, directly or indirectly, in the club by that person (or by the trustees or members referred to in paragraph 2(5)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 1),
(ii) terminate that person's right (or that of the trustees or members referred to in paragraph 2(5)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 1) to exercise, or cease to exercise, significant influence or control over the activities of the club, and
(iii) terminate that person's right (or that of the trustees or members referred to in paragraph 2(5)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 1) to appoint or remove an officer of the club, and
(b) empower any director of the club, or any trustee appointed by virtue of an order under section 43, to complete, execute and deliver in the name of, and as agent and attorney on behalf of, the person referred to in paragraph 13(a) (or the trustees or members referred to in paragraph 2(5)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 1) all documents necessary to fulfil that person's obligations under paragraph 13(a).”
This amendment creates an enforcement provision to better enable the removal of an unsuitable owner. It would require a club to amend its articles of association to include a standing set of compulsory share transfer provisions and restrictions on the usual powers of a majority shareholder.
Mr Betts
This is actually quite an important issue—not that other things are not important—because it seems to me that it is at the heart of what happens when we try to get proper ownership into football clubs. It is a complicated legal issue, so I am not expecting the Minister immediately to agree with every word in my amendment, but I thank Fair Game for having a look at this and trying to come up with a solution.
The amendment relates to the case of Reading, a club that have had real difficulties recently: they had an owner who was not interested—they almost walked away from the club—and the EFL was in a difficult place because it eventually had evidence about behaviours, I think in China, that were not acceptable and meant that the owner was no longer a “fit and proper person”. What happens in that situation?
No one who is not a fit and proper person may run a club, so the club then cannot play in any competition it is currently in. That is the point that Reading almost got to. In the end, a sale was made just a few days before the EFL deadline day, which saved the club and allowed it to continue. But if the owner had been completely capricious, and had just decided, “It’s my club and I’m not selling, so what?” the club would have disappeared, and there is nothing that the EFL or anyone else could have done.
I am not sure the Bill says anything about what happens to a club if the current owner or owners were previously deemed to be fit and proper persons, but are no longer. Such persons cannot have a licence. Without a licence, the club cannot play in the competition. There is nothing that the regulator can do, as it stands, if the owner refuses to sell and give up their ownership. Where does that leave the club?
I am trying to find a way that gives the regulator powers—perhaps of appointing trustees—to enable the club to continue to operate with a licence in the competition they are playing in.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We have all seen clubs driven into the ground by irresponsible owners. We have cited Dai Yongge at Reading, Mel Morris at Derby and Steve Dale at Bury, who disastrously led Bury into bankruptcy and eventually it disappeared. The dilemma will clearly be in how and when these powers are invoked and what criteria are used to invoke them. Would my hon. Friend say that this is about having backstop powers to enforce better behaviour by owners who may decide to engage in a course of action that brings a club to the sort of place that Reading, Derby and Bury have found themselves, rather than those powers always being exercised?
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one wants to see the regulator come in and compel clubs to change ownership. That is not the intention. Encouraging owners to behave better so that that intervention is not necessary is of course the ideal outcome, but history would teach us that not every power or potential use of power will compel some owners to behave properly. This is about what happens when they do not.
The whole purpose of these arrangements in the Bill is to stop the Burys happening again, or to stop the situation at Reading getting worse than it did. At this stage, I do not see where the power is for the regulator to do anything other than to say that someone is not a fit and proper person.
Lincoln Jopp
Has the hon. Gentleman considered that, essentially, we are talking about the state seizing someone’s assets and giving them to someone else? If a club falls into administration, the administrator is governed by a very strict set of laws in terms of treating all creditors fairly. Is he not concerned that this power could fly in the face of existing powers for the administration of companies?
Mr Betts
The hon. Member raises a worthwhile point for consideration. It may be that in the situation of Reading, if it had not changed ownership, the club would have gone into administration, because it would have had no income coming in because it could not play in the competition. That is entirely possible. It is possible that the chairman could just walk away and say, “Right, I am dissolving this organisation—I am off.” That would not be acceptable for fans.
That is why I said at the beginning that it is a complicated legal issue, and I am not saying that I have the only solution here. What I am saying is that there is a problem that does not currently appear to have a solution in the Bill. It is a problem. I keep going back to the situation at Sheffield Wednesday. We have a situation where an owner is running out of money. We do not even know where his money comes from. It clearly does not come from his companies, because his companies are loss-making. Is he being supported by his family? Is the Thai Union Group providing the money? Is the family trust providing the money? The regulator will have the power to find the source of funding, which might be quite interesting in some cases. We had a situation at Leeds a few years ago where we did not even know who owned the club.
Getting that information on the record and giving the regulator powers to find out who actually owns the club, what the source of funding is and whether the beneficial owner is the same as the owner who claims to be the owner are important issues, but then we get to the point where the owner is found to be not fit and proper. What actually happens? I do not know the answer. I have read the Bill many times and debated it many times, and still do not know the answer. There has to be an answer.
Lincoln Jopp
My understanding of the Bill is that under those circumstances, they would lose their licence to operate.
Mr Betts
They would, and therefore the club disappears. No one wants to see that. The whole purpose of the Bill is to stop clubs disappearing, to stop what happened to Bury, and so there is a gap in the legislation, because what happens in that situation? It nearly happened at Reading—the club nearly disappeared, but in the end it was a last-minute sale. If the owner had not sold it at the last minute, however, the EFL has no powers to deal with it, and the regulator will not either. The regulator has the power to say: “You shouldn’t be owning the club. You shouldn’t have a licence to operate the club, because of what you have done, you haven’t got the funds, your source of funds is inappropriate”—all those things—but then what happens?
I am saying to the Minister that the whole intention of the Bill is to ensure that the clubs that fans have supported for years, for generations—for communities, it is their club—do not disappear, go out of business or lose their place in the competition they are playing in. Clubs might get relegated, that is fine, but they should not lose their place because they have an owner who is not fit and proper, and does not meet the test. We have to find way of dealing with this, which the Bill does not do as drafted.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for moving the amendment and tabling amendment 8. To be the owner of a football club is to be the custodian of a treasured and historic community asset. That should be an honour, but it also comes with great responsibility. We recognise that in the past, however, it has typically been the actions of unsuitable custodians that have put our historic clubs at risk of collapse. It is vital that the regulator has the necessary powers to protect clubs and their fans from such owners. We therefore completely recognise the intent behind the amendments—to ensure that the regulator has the necessary enforcement mechanisms to back up its regime and guarantee protection from unsuitable owners.
I reassure my hon. Friend that the Bill already suitably achieves that. The regulator already has the power to require a club to make constitutional changes if the regulator considers that that is an appropriate way to secure an unsuitable owner’s removal. It has a range of strong powers to enforce against any non-compliance. The powers include the imposition of sanctions, such as financial penalties, all the way up to forcing divestment, which would force an owner to divest their stake in the club at no minimum price, directing them to take no part in the running of the club in the meantime. If necessary, the regulator can appoint an interim officer to assist the club operating effectively in the owner’s absence.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne in an intervention—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East a number of times—that ability to isolate and remove unsuitable owners and officers should mean that a club never has to have its licence suspended or revoked. A clubs’ fans should therefore not have to suffer the consequences of bad leadership. To be clear, because the licence is separate from the owner, the removal of an owner will not impact the club’s licensed status. We will come on shortly to discuss owners and directors, so I shall reflect on my hon. Friend’s comments ahead of that debate. I hope to provide him with reassurance, but we will not support his amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I am saying that the regulator may—I am not saying definitely will, because I do not want to get into hypotheticals of what it will do or not—appoint an interim officer to assist a club to operate effectively in the owner’s absence. To be clear, the club’s licence is separate from its owner, so the removal of the owner does not impact the club’s licensed status.
Mr Betts
In further debate, we will come back to the issues of owners and directors, to which the Minister referred. As I said at the beginning, this was an exploratory amendment for discussion of the whole issue, which is important, but with her reassurance. at this point I will not press the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 103, line 16, at end insert—
“Asset of Community Value
11A The Asset of Community Value condition is a condition requiring a club to either—
(a) obtain and maintain Asset of Community Value status for its home ground; or
(b) incorporate into its Articles of Association a restriction which substantially mirrors the restrictions placed on Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act 2011,
and the Secretary of State may create regulations detailing further the implementation of the Asset of Community Value condition.”
The amendment defines the Asset of Community Value condition that clubs are required to obtain for their home ground and is consequential on Amendment 16.
Mr Betts
Assets of community value have been looked at in a number of different ways over time. Some clubs are already in this situation because their fans have moved to do this. That is true at Sheffield Wednesday, where fans moved some time ago to have the ground designated as an asset of community value. It does not provide a complete safeguard against an owner, who wants to cause mischief and upset for fans and the club, transferring the ground for another purpose, but it provides more of a safeguard than simply having it as a ground without any particular protection, as is currently the case.
The Minister referred to what the MHCLG might be doing in this area on the rules around planning. Is she prepared to look at using assets of community value to give further protection and to comfort fans that football grounds hold a different status to other assets that owners, from time to time, might want to change for another purpose?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments. I know we have discussed this issue a number of times; it has always been a pleasure to do so, and I recognise its importance. Home grounds are often the most important asset that a club owns, so that is why I want to thank my hon. Friend for placing a real focus on them.
The significant financial and heritage value that grounds hold is why the Bill has strong protections to prevent home grounds being sold, used as collateral or relocated without the necessary considerations. Asset of community value status is another mechanism that a number of clubs and supporter groups have obtained for their home grounds. We would expect the regulator to welcome any club that wishes to gain community value status for an asset as another way to protect their home ground.
However, we are confident that the legislation will provide the necessary protections to address fan concerns and keep these important assets protected without mandating this status. Additionally, while assets of community value have proven beneficial for many clubs where no other protections have been in place, these amendments may place an unnecessary burden on clubs. As currently drafted, they would require clubs to either go through what can be a lengthy process with the relevant authority or make structural changes to the constitutional document of a club. Given that significant protections are already in place in the Bill that deliver the necessary safeguards, it is difficult to justify any additional measures for all regulated clubs, especially as a mandatory licence condition.
I really want to reassure my hon. Friend, as I know that home ground protections are of particular importance to him, that the Government have already committed to asset of community value reform in our manifesto, and this is something that the recent English devolution White Paper from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commits to.
Mr French
I have a lot of sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. The Minister argues that this does not need to be addressed through the regulator, but will guidance be published for those fan groups who are keen to ensure the long-term future of their grounds? What guidance will be published to ensure that any fans in this situation have clear advice from the Government on the best routes to protect their ground?
Stephanie Peacock
I am saying that I am confident the legislation will provide the necessary protections to address fan concerns, but I also draw the Committee’s attention to the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the specific issue of assets of community value. Of course, that does not fall into my portfolio, but I am very happy to commit to speaking to my relevant counterpart and adding to the letter that I have earlier committed to writing. This is something that I am sympathetic to, but I do not have the ability to make that commitment today. I believe that the work the Ministry is doing is very interesting and relevant to what we are discussing. For that reason, I am unable to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I ask that he withdraws it.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for that reply; it is helpful in moving the discussion in the right direction. I appreciate that she cannot commit on behalf of another Department and other Ministers, but she has indicated that work is going on in this area. Again, it would be helpful if she could encourage her colleagues in the MHCLG to come forward with that further information before we get to Report. If they are going to write to us about the other issue, they could write to us about this as well. It would be extremely helpful if that could be done, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 136, in schedule 5, page 102, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the requirement for the corporate governance statement to cover what action the club is taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.
Mr French
My amendments would remove the requirement for clubs to include in their corporate governance statements an account of the actions they are taking to improve EDI. Although the intentions behind the provision may be well-meaning, we believe it is misplaced within the framework of a Bill that is rightly intended to stabilise the footballing pyramid, preserve our historic clubs and ensure sustainable financial conduct.
Let us be clear about what schedule 5 seeks to achieve. It introduces a requirement for clubs to prepare and publish an annual corporate governance statement setting out how the club is managed, its leadership and board structure, and the internal controls that ensure compliance with financial and operational rules. That is, at heart, a welcome and worthwhile measure that will support transparency and proper stewardship across the game. Those are principles that we have been urging the Government to apply to the regulator throughout the process of the Bill, but we believe in certain areas they have declined to do so. The inclusion, however, of a requirement for clubs to report on their actions to advance EDI veers into territory that is, at best, tangential to the core purpose of the legislation. This is, after all, a Football Governance Bill, not a vehicle for social policy experimentation.
Melanie Onn
We talked about this briefly in a previous session. The requirements in schedule 5 are exactly what would be found in any business’s corporate governance report, alongside ESG expectations. Why should it be different for football, and is it particularly the “E”, the “D” or the “I” that the shadow Minister does not like?
Mr French
In my previous career, I headed up sustainability on ESG, so I understand the hon. Lady’s point. If she will let me continue, I believe my points will answer her question.
This country’s football clubs are not arms of the state. They are private institutions, many of which are more than a century old, with proud identities shaped by the local community’s traditions and values. Their job is not to issue corporate platitudes on diversity but to serve their supporters, compete on the pitch and conduct themselves with financial integrity. Mandating EDI reporting risks turning the regulator into a cultural enforcer rather than a steward of good governance.
Importantly, however, we must also consider the burden it will place on clubs, particularly those in the lower leagues. Our amendments go to the heart of an argument that has served us time and again during the scrutiny of the Bill: the risk of regulatory overreach and overburden. Clubs in League One and League Two, National League outfits and even some Championship sides already struggle with the administrative requirements expected of them, from audit processes to licensing compliance. Adding more politically motivated reporting requirements, particularly in controversial and contested areas such as EDI, risks deepening the strain without any justification related to the Bill’s primary purpose: football. Some may argue that football has a responsibility to lead on matters of social justice, but cultural change should not be imposed by statutory mandate. Real change, where needed, comes from within; from clubs taking action because it is right for them and their supporters, not because a regulator demands it as part of its governance tick-box exercise.
We can see that with Forest Green Rovers, a club that chose, of its own accord, to take a distinctive approach to sustainability, ethics and inclusion not because a regulator told them to, but because it aligned with their leadership values and the identity they wanted to build. Whether or not one agrees with their choices, the point is that they were made voluntarily. That is the right way to foster progress in football—through leadership and initiative, not through regulatory coercion.
As we discuss schedule 5 and the role of corporate governance statements in football clubs reporting, it is important to recognise the significant work already underway in the game on EDI—work that is being driven voluntarily and effectively by the FA, Premier League, EFL and National League without an overzealous and politicised regulator interfering. The Premier League has developed its own EDI standard, known as PLEDIS. It provides clubs with a clear, structured framework to improve inclusion both on and off the pitch. It is not a mere tick-box exercise, as we fear the Government regulator will be. It is a rigorous programme of three levels: preliminary, intermediate and advanced. Clubs must earn all of those levels for evidence-based progress and independent assessment.
Max Wilkinson
The shadow Minister referenced Forest Green Rovers, which is the rival club to my town’s club, Cheltenham Town. I have nothing against Forest Green Rovers. They have vegan catering, and many people view veganism as a political statement. That is, of course, a business choice that Forest Green Rovers made and it has served them well. Based on a previous amendment the shadow Minister tabled, would he suggest that the fans should have been consulted on the move from meat to vegan food being served in the grounds?
Mr French
I am happy to answer that with a simple yes. They should have been consulted.
To date, 27 clubs have engaged with PLEDIS, and 18 have achieved the advanced level. Clubs such as West Ham United have demonstrated genuine leadership by embedding EDI principles deep within their organisation over multiple years without the need for Government involvement.
Beyond PLEDIS, the Premier League’s “No Room for Racism” campaign highlights a range of targeted initiatives, from supporting coaching pathways to enhancing representation among players and officials from diverse backgrounds. Premier League schemes such as the professional player to coach scheme and the coach inclusion and diversity scheme have supported more than 80 coaches into full-time professional roles. Meanwhile, thousands of grassroots participants benefit from programmes aimed at increasing access for under-represented communities in football, including the south Asian action plan.
Meanwhile, the English Football League has also taken proactive steps through its equality code of practice, which encourages clubs to set ambitious, measurable goals and recognise best practice through an awards system, with 10 clubs having attained silver status as of last year. The EFL’s community outreach includes programmes such as the Stronger Communities cup, which promotes social cohesion by bringing together girls from local communities and girls who have been forcibly displaced. The EFL Trust’s talent inclusion programme further demonstrates how clubs are creating pathways for young women from diverse backgrounds, ensuring that football’s future is open and accessible. All that work has taken place without the need for the Government’s regulator to interfere.
These efforts underline a key principle: real progress on equality and inclusion in football comes through leadership, commitment and initiative, not through bureaucratic mandates or additional regulatory burdens. Clubs are already stepping up in a meaningful way. That is why we argue against adding a new statutory reporting requirement on EDI in the Bill. We believe that this would risk distracting from the core purpose of the Bill—ensuring sound governance and financial sustainability within English football—while imposing burdens that may not add tangible value.
I urge hon. Members to recognise the existing achievements of football and to support my amendments, which would remove the unnecessary requirements for clubs to report on EDI action in their corporate governance statements. Fans do not attend matches to receive diversity statements. They go to support their team, share in the highs and lows, and pass on the tradition that means something to them and their community. They do so as part of a footballing community that is focused on the team they support, not the colour of a supporter’s skin, their religion or their sexual preference.
These initiatives reflect concerted efforts by the Premier League, the FA, the EFL and the National League to foster an inclusive environment in football. They demonstrate that meaningful progress on EDI can be achieved through voluntary, club-led actions rather than statutory mandates. What precisely do the Government intend that their regulator do with these EDI statements? Will they be assessed for adequacy and ranked against each other? Will penalties be imposed for perceived failure to meet EDI expectations? The risk is not just regulatory creep, but mission creep—the regulator may become an arbiter of social values rather than a guarantor of financial sustainability and good governance.
Let me be absolutely clear: we support inclusivity and fair treatment in football and beyond. Discrimination has no place in the game. Kick It Out and Show Racism the Red Card do important work, and we will continue to support that work, but not by putting extra burdens on clubs that are, in many cases, already struggling due to Labour’s decision to hammer businesses at every turn and twist.
Melanie Onn
The shadow Minister spoke about initiatives that have already been undertaken in football. Clubs have a wider role of community leadership in local communities, and is that not precisely what these rules and regulations provide for? They will ensure that clubs deliver community leadership on things that are important, particularly around community cohesion.
Mr French
As I have made clear, we believe that some of these issues are important, but we believe that they should be addressed on a voluntary basis, which is what has driven progress in the game. We do not believe that it should be mandated in statute at arm’s length by the Government. I have been clear in making that distinction in my comments.
Requiring clubs to report annually on their EDI action is not a proportionate or effective way to achieve those broader aims. It amounts to moral licensing, encouraging clubs to go through the motions rather than to take meaningful steps to foster a welcoming culture in ways that make sense for them.
My amendments would restore clarity to the regulator’s remit. They would ensure that schedule 5 is focused on what really matters: clear lines of accountability, proper oversight of directors and owners, and a robust governance structure that protects clubs from the kind of catastrophic mismanagement that we have seen in the past. Football has always been about community; it is in the dressing rooms, on the terraces and in the shared heritage of our towns and cities that the game’s values are lived. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking that they can be legislated for by line item in a regulator’s reporting requirements. It is for that reason that I tabled these amendments. I urge the Minister to reflect seriously on whether this part of schedule 5 is truly consistent with the aims of the Bill and the traditions of our national game, which is inclusive by default.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendments, but I disagree with the attempts to remove the references to EDI from the Bill. I will outline why and then, towards the end of my contribution, I will respond to his specific questions.
The Government believe that equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes outlined, it is common practice. Research shows that diversity on boards and in organisations promotes better governance, decision making and transparency, all of which, in turn, contribute to improved financial sustainability. The relationship between diversity and better corporate performance is recognised by the Financial Reporting Council and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.
The industry is already taking action in this space, and the shadow Minister shared some examples, which I will not repeat. In November 2024, the FA published its four-year equality, diversity and inclusion strategy, titled “A Game Free from Discrimination”. It set out a long-term commitment to celebrate and promote diversity in English football, as well as an ambition to tackle all forms of discrimination in the game.
At a club level, in May this year, Chelsea’s incredible work in that area was recognised, with the Premier League awarding them the advanced level of its equality, diversity and inclusion standard—the highest level that can be awarded. All clubs in the Premier League, and some that have since been relegated from it, engage with the Premier League equality, diversity and inclusion standard initiative.
The Bill does not put EDI in football—it is already there and it is being celebrated by the industry. It is therefore right that, as a regulator that will be introducing a corporate governance code and requiring clubs to report against that, it covers EDI. The regulator will look to work co-operatively with stakeholders, draw on the expertise of the sector and add industry initiatives.
As with fan engagement, this will be a statutory baseline. Clubs that already champion equality, diversity and inclusion will not have an additional burden placed on them, other than having to periodically report on those things. Under the corporate governance code, clubs will simply be required to explain how they are applying the code and what actions they are taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion—and nothing more. That is not onerous; it is a very helpful transparency measure, and it speaks to the question that the shadow Minister posed. I want to be very clear: the regulator is not going to prescriptively micromanage each club’s board or set targets and quotas on EDI. That is simply not the role of the regulator and would cause a significant burden to both the regulator and clubs. Ultimately, this is only a reporting requirement that all clubs should be able to meet.
Mr French
I appreciate the clarity provided by the Minister in outlining what she believes the regulator should or should not do. On quotas, can we be absolutely clear that the Government’s intention is not for there to be a mandated quota for clubs to have certain elements and different parts of the community on the board? Is that the clear intention in what the Minister is saying?
Stephanie Peacock
Absolutely. I will repeat the wording I just used in the Committee: to be very clear, the regulator is not going to prescriptively micromanage each club’s board or set targets or quotas on EDI. We will have that in Hansard twice now, so the intention should be very clear. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will seek to withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
I appreciate the clarity that the Minister provided on quotas, because that particularly concerns Opposition Members. As I have mentioned—I will not seek to repeat my comments—we are concerned about mission creep and scope creep of the regulator and what the Bill is designed to do. I made it clear earlier that I believe that football is inclusive and that it has done amazing work, when we compare the state of football 20 or 30 years ago with where we are today. We see that on the terraces at most clubs every single week, and we certainly see that with the national team, which most of the country comes together to support, particularly in big tournaments.
Mandating EDI reporting and turning it into a bit of a tick-box exercise—that was highlighted in some of the Minister’s comments—moves away from what we believe to be the valuable part of this work, which is to drive forward inclusivity in clubs and increase the fan base, which is good for clubs, by expanding beyond some of the traditional support of the game. We fear that having this provision in the corporate governance code, in the way it is written, will lead to unintended consequences. It will drive certain agendas, and we fear that clubs will walk into a number of traps accidentally.
We have tabled these amendments because we believe that EDI reporting, especially in certain areas where it is contested, should not be put on clubs in this way. The voluntary scheme in football has worked much more powerfully over the years, and that is proven in the experiences at football grounds around the country.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 137, in schedule 5, page 102, line 2, at end insert
“including the club’s official charity.”
This amendment would make clear that the activities of a football club’s official charity can be counted towards it meeting the corporate governance code.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the amendment. The Bill as drafted does not specify that the activities of these charities—often known as community trusts—count when taking into account actions taken by the club in relation to meeting the corporate governance code, so I start by asking the Minister why the Bill does not contain explicit recognition, in the governance reporting requirements, of the work done by community trusts. I would appreciate it if she could pick that up in her comments.
As both the shadow Minister for sport and the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I am in a fortunate position: I get to see week in, week out how sport, and football in particular, can transform lives. I also get to see what that looks like in practice, not just in headlines or strategies, but on the ground—in local parks, youth centres and school halls across my constituency. I know that other Members will have similar experiences in their own.
In my constituency, we are lucky to benefit from the extraordinary work undertaken by Charlton Athletic Community Trust. It is no exaggeration to say that CACT, if we want to call it that—I do not really like that wording—has become one of the most respected and impactful community foundations affiliated with a professional football club anywhere in the country. It often wins awards at national level for that work. Its work extends far beyond the pitch and well beyond the borough of Greenwich, where the training ground and the stadium—the Valley—are located, and deep into my borough of Bexley, the wider south-east London area, and Kent. In fact, Charlton have been delivering services and support in Bexley for well over a decade.
Charlton’s community trust delivers youth services on behalf of Bexley council. It provides safe spaces and structured activities that help young people to develop skills, build confidence and stay on the right path. In today’s world, where young people, as most Members would recognise, face growing pressures and limited opportunity, that kind of work is more vital than ever.
Although Charlton are not a Premier League side just yet, one of the flagship initiatives that it runs is the Premier League Kicks programme, which operates across the borough in areas such as Thamesmead, Slade Green and Erith—places where young people often face the dual challenge of limited opportunities and exposure to risks—as well as in my area of Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling. The Kicks sessions are free weekly football sessions, but they are about much more than just sport. They take place in safe and welcoming environments and are led by trained staff. Young people aged between eight and 18 can build confidence, learn leadership skills and receive mentoring from positive role models—often young adults who were once participants in the scheme.
What makes the Kicks programme in Bexley particularly valuable is its consistency and partnership working. Sessions are delivered year round in collaboration with the police, youth services and local schools. This is not a one-off scheme or a publicity stunt. It is part of a broader, integrated approach to youth engagement and early intervention that genuinely helps to steer young people away from things such as crime and towards the opportunities that football presents.
Charlton’s work goes far wider than just youth engagement, although I have seen that recently at Hurstmere school in my constituency and when Charlton brought the Premier League trophy to a local park. It was incredible to see the reactions of young football fans to the trophy. Just remember not to touch it—a mistake that I made on the day, and I was rightly told off.
In Bexley, Charlton are a contracted delivery partner for the council’s early help youth services—statutory support that has been delivered to a high professional standard for many years. Importantly, the trust has developed deep and lasting partnerships in Bexley and Greenwich, not only with the local authority, but with the NHS, local schools, the police and the voluntary sector. That joined-up approach is what makes its work sustainable and successful. As I said, I am sure that many other clubs around the country are doing such work.
Jim Dickson
The hon. Gentleman is outlining in great detail the amazing work done by Charlton Athletic through its club charity. Nearby Dartford football club are lower down the football pyramid, but is he aware that, none the less—typically of clubs around the country, be they in League One, the Championship, as Charlton now are, or lower down the pyramid—it does amazing work? Dartford FC educational charity does incredible work in the community. It has partnered up with ellenor hospice to raise money, and it has undertaken great public health work with Kent county council around stopping smoking. I am glad that he has mentioned Charlton’s work and given us an opportunity to raise the work done by our clubs.
The Chair
Before the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup responds, it may be of assistance if I put on record that I am prepared to take it as read that all football clubs do good work. There is no need for Members to explain it in detail.
Mr French
Thank you for your guidance, Sir Jeremy. You will be pleased to know that I am coming on to why my example is relevant to the amendment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford for raising the example of Dartford football club—a rival of one of my other local clubs, Welling United, which also do great work in the community.
In the light of your words, Sir Jeremy, I will move on to the amendment. Clubs do such amazing work around the country, and the amendment would ensure that that is recognised properly in the Bill. I hope the Minister agrees that work that such community trusts are delivering around the country, particularly in youth engagement, public health and crime prevention, should form part of a club’s social responsibility and how it is reported.
Why does that matter in the context of the Bill? Because we are legislating for a new governance framework for football, and the Government have decided that this Bill must reflect football clubs’ wider social responsibilities and recognise the real value of institutions such as the trusts, which deliver on the responsibilities in practice. As the Bill is drafted, there is a risk that such work will be seen as separate from clubs’ corporate governance responsibility, and there is a risk that a club will have to wind up its charitable organisation—God forbid—and bring it fully in-house to meet the requirements of the Bill. Allowing a club’s charities or community trusts to count towards that will allow the good work to continue growing while trusts benefit from their charitable status.
The Bill is a slight own goal, but I believe the drafting can be corrected. We believe it represents a missed opportunity for communities across the country, and our amendment would correct that by making it clear that clubs can include the work of their associated community trusts as part of how they meet their governance targets. That does not mean giving clubs an easy ride or allowing them to paper over poor performance elsewhere, but it does mean taking a more holistic, grounded approach to what good governance looks like in the real world.
When we are considering how best to shape football regulation, I believe the example set out by the Charlton trust should give us something to aim for across the country and across the football pyramid. It shows what football at its best can do when it is rooted firmly in its community and takes its social obligations seriously. Charlton Athletic may not be in the Premier League at the moment—give them another season—but through the community trust, they are leading the way in community impact. I understand that it is up for another national award this year.
That is why I believe the amendment is not only proportionate and practical, but in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. If we are serious about building a more sustainable and responsible football pyramid, we must also be serious about recognising clubs that take their community obligations very seriously, not through a statement of intent but through long-standing, properly resourced partnerships.
In Bexley, it does not matter whether you are an Addick yourself; you can come along to a Premier League Kicks session and be part of something bigger. The same is true of neighbouring Millwall, who do lots of great work in the Lewisham borough. We want this to be more than a box-ticking exercise.
There is a real risk that clubs will scale back some of that work if it is brought under the scope of the Government’s regulator. I am sure the Minister would agree that that would be an unintended consequence. Does she agree that allowing clubs to include their trusts’ work in their corporate governance statements would incentivise long-term investment in high-quality community programmes, rather than short-term or superficial schemes?
We hope that any new regulatory framework, including the establishment of the Government’s regulator, will recognise and protect the kind of local partnership work that I have described today. Will the Minister therefore tell us whether she believes that when it assesses a club’s performance, the regulator will be equipped to distinguish between high-impact, properly evaluated community work, such as I have described, and less substantive activity? Will she issue guidance that the regulator must have regard to outreach delivered through a club’s trust when assessing corporate governance?
The Chair adjourned the Committee without question put (Standing Order No. 88.)
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
“(iv) accommodation and relocation, and”.
This amendment ensures that the impact of accommodation and relocation is considered in care and treatment reviews for patients with autism or learning disabilities.
Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“(v) the patient,
(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and
(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”
This amendment would ensure that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive copy of a care, education, and treatment review meeting report for children and young people with autism or a learning disability.
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 5, line 31, for “12” substitute “six”.
This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(iii) housing, and”.
This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care and treatment review meetings.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(v) the patient,
(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and
(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”
This amendment ensures that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive a copy of a care and treatment review meeting report.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 7, line 40, for “12” substitute “six”.
This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 8, line 12, leave out “must have regard to” and insert
“have a duty to carry out”.
This amendment ensures that integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient's treatment and care have a duty to implement recommendations arising from a care and treatment review.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
I thank the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford for tabling this group of amendments. I will address each in turn, beginning with amendments 1, 4 and 51. We recognise that a lack of appropriate housing can be a barrier to discharge for some patients. That is why we have put the important reviews on a statutory footing. I am pleased to provide an assurance that the Bill already makes provision for any relevant recommendation about a patient’s discharge, including meeting their housing needs.
Statutory guidance will assist the responsible commissioner to determine who to involve in review meetings. That will include guidance on when the involvement of partners such as housing departments and organisations may be appropriate. Placing a specific requirement to consider the housing needs of every patient would mean that housing would have to be considered in every case, even if it is not a relevant issue. Potentially, that could divert focus from factors more relevant to the patient’s care and treatment.
On amendments 2 and 5, the Bill makes it clear that a copy of the review report must be provided to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that any recommendations are implemented as appropriate. The patient should receive the report, in line with good practice. However, we are concerned that requiring a longer list of people to receive the report in every case might increase the chance of patients withdrawing their consent for a review to be held, especially if they do not wish for those people to see the report. We recognise that it is often appropriate for the report to be provided to other people, such as those listed in the amendments, but the Bill was amended in the other place to make it clear that a copy of the report may be provided to other persons not listed in the legislation, with the patient’s consent.
Amendments 3 and 6 are unnecessary. The current drafting provides that review meetings take place at least once every 12 months. That is in addition to the requirement that arrangements must be made for an initial review meeting to take place within 14 days of admission for children and for some people aged 18 and over, and within 28 days for other adults. We also know that more frequent reviews may not be appropriate for all patients. For example, for a patient who is unable to be discharged for a long time, reviews that focus on discharge may be rather distressing.
Commissioners should use their judgment to determine whether the individual needs of a patient might mean that a more frequent review is appropriate. NHS England policy makes it clear that patients, their families and advocates can request a review meeting at any point. Statutory guidance will provide commissioners with further information on factors to consider when determining whether more frequent reviews should take place. For example, current practice, in line with NHS England policy, is that children under 18 should have a review meeting at least every three months—that will be made clear in the guidance. We consider it preferable to set out that information in statutory guidance, which can provide detailed case studies and be readily updated in line with emerging best practice, including on frequency and considering particular circumstances.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister makes a fair point about best practice. However, did the Government consider any mechanism for how best to share best practice across areas? Especially as the Bill also covers Wales, as heard this morning, it might be useful—across the integrated care boards—to understand the Government’s thinking on how to ensure that best practice in exemplar places, where care is really good, can be shared to help places where care might not be so good.
Stephen Kinnock
The shadow Minister is right, and one of the overarching objectives of this Government is to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We are very keen to ensure that we identify best practice right across the board in all the services that we provide, and that it is then replicated and scaled up. We also recognise, though, that every community and area of the country is different, so it is not about exporting and importing best practice. It is more about looking at those exemplars and asking, “How could we use some of this, without reinventing the wheel?” That is absolutely the culture of how we want our health service to run—I think it is a cultural point.
Dr Evans
The Minister makes a good point about the differences in the country, one of which is how the Care Quality Commission looks at the standards. Especially as the CQC is under new leadership, will it be taking a role in looking at how best practice is implemented while ensuring standards?
Stephen Kinnock
The CQC has a key inspection role, which is an important check and balance in the system. I would rather see the incremental building of a culture of excellence across the board, including within upstream institutions, ICBs, local authorities, healthcare professionals, mental health professionals and social workers. We need to create a collaborative approach across the board so that best practice is developed within a culture of excellence. One would hope that the CQC, when it does its inspections, is then finding positive results. Of course, it also plays an important role in identifying, investigating and holding to account when things are not going as they should.
Finally, I will address amendment 7. The Bill requires named persons and bodies to have regard to the review recommendations. This is a well-established duty that clinicians, integrated care boards and other public bodies are used to applying and already exists within the Act. Where effective care and treatment is the central aim, we expect careful consideration of all recommendations. Where these bodies decide not to accept a relevant recommendation, we expect them to have a very good reason.
It is inappropriate to place an absolute duty on a body to follow recommendations in every case, as flexibility is required to depart from a recommendation where appropriate, for example if a recommendation is outside the body’s purview or not in the patient’s best interests. As currently drafted, the Bill already requires that certain named persons or bodies carefully consider the recommendations and give them appropriate weight. Where a body does not consider a recommendation appropriately, that may be subject to review by the courts. In the light of all this, I therefore thank the Liberal Democrats—
Dr Evans
The Minister is right about the absolute nature of the Liberal Democrat amendment, but we talked about the duty to respond requiring a body to set out why it has decided to take action or not. The Minister seemed to allude to that, but he then jumped to talking about being challenged in court. Is there a hybrid version within that duty to respond so that it could stipulate the setting out of why the body is accepting the recommendations or not, because that may well help transparency?
Stephen Kinnock
I see where the shadow Minister and the amendments are coming from, but there is a risk of over-embroidering the Bill if we try to load additional duties on to something that we believe is already happening. It is a very well-established duty that clinicians, integrated care boards and other public bodies are used to applying, and this already exists within the Act. I think there is an element here of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
If there is compelling evidence that it is not working, clearly we need to intervene as a system, which is about real leadership at the ICB level. As things stand, we feel that this amendment is surplus to requirements for the reasons I have set out. I thank the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford for this exchange of views, and I hope that they are content to withdraw amendment 1.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Furniss. I know that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon will have spent his lunch time anticipating the responses to his long series of questions. The tension is palpable— I hope he is excited to hear our replies.
Dr Chambers
Unfortunately, I was busy meeting Brian May and talking about farming, so I have not had a chance to work up a really good response.
The point of the Liberal Democrat amendments is to recognise that mental ill health requires holistic care and that many non-clinical factors directly influence mental health. Although the Bill’s scope is understandably narrow, very much focusing on people once they are admitted to hospital for treatment, we need to recognise that, if someone is discharged back into the situation from which they were admitted, they are very likely to have a relapse and to need treatment again. Some of those factors are non-clinical. For example, people living in poverty—those in the lowest 20% of income—are more than twice as likely to suffer mental health issues than those on an average income.
We strongly support the Bill, but we need to recognise that, on its own, it will not improve mental health or do anything to prevent people from developing mental health issues. If our amendments are not within scope or are not appropriate for the Bill, we urge the Minister to work with other Departments, such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that this good piece of legislation, which we support, can be successful.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon made a point this morning about local authorities. He is right that local authority reorganisation is a challenge, especially when it comes to providing accommodation for young people and for people being discharged from mental health care centres. It is also an opportunity, because the current situation is not fit for purpose. Hampshire county council is struggling to provide the care these people need. Housing, which often affects young people’s mental health, is probably the single biggest issue that comes up in my inbox and when I knock on doors.
I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. As a clinician, his point about the evidence base, especially when it comes to reviews, is really important. We are discussing a Mental Health Bill that may not be changed significantly for another 40 years, so it is important that we use the best evidence. As a long-time trustee of an evidence-based medicine charity, I am passionate about this.
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for pointing out that clinical guidelines suggest six-month reviews. Yearly reviews are used for many medical conditions, and I would argue that a year is also an arbitrary period, rather than one based in evidence. Why six months and not a year, or why a year and not six months?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is correct to establish the evidence base and the guidance. Broadly, we need to balance that with the logistics and the impact on the clinician, the patient and the resources. Move too far one way and it becomes a tick-box exercise or more resource-heavy; move too far the other way and the safeguards that we are trying to implement are lost or watered down.
When I look at the amendments, that is the balance I am trying to understand; if the guidelines are written with that in mind, that makes sense. The job of this House is to scrutinise the numbers and decide whether we agree that they are right, or whether we should push a bit harder—whether we should tighten the safeguards or relax them a little to allow clinicians more freedom of choice.
I guess that is the purpose of the Bill—getting the right boundary between the safety of the individual patient, support for the wider public, and making sure that clinicians have the freedom to make their judgment so that we are not stepping on expert opinion or, worse, creating bureaucratic processes. I hope the hon. Member understands that is why we are probing further on the rationale.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with everything the hon. Member just said. Atul Gawande did a fantastic piece of work on checklists that emphasised the need for them not to become tick boxes. They are meant to involve active thinking and decision making.
I thank the Minister for reassuring us about housing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 4, page 8, line 27, at end insert—
“(ba) the person is under 18 years old and satisfies the conditions in (b)(ii).”
This amendment inserts a new subsection that extends the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to all children and young people under the age of 18.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 4, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The risk factors specified in regulations under subsection (5) must include—
(a) homelessness;
(b) addiction;
(c) domestic abuse;
(d) miscarriage and traumatic birth;
(e) experience of armed conflict; and
(f) bereavement.”
This amendment would specify risk factors for detention for people on the register of people at risk of detention under Clause 4.
Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) seek to ensure that the needs of children and young people can be met without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.”
This amendment extends the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.
Dr Chambers
Amendments 8 and 9 would insert a new subsection to extend to all children and young people under the age of 18 the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register of those at risk of detention. Amendment 9 would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.
Far too many children are unable to access the mental health care they need, leaving them more vulnerable to experiencing a mental health crisis that then requires detention, which all too often ends in tragedy. Child and adolescent mental health services are in a state of near collapse, with many children unable to access the care and treatment they need until their mental ill health has reached the point of crisis. Waiting 15 months in great mental distress is far too long, especially for children. It is a huge disruption not only to their personal development but to their education. Waiting up to two years for treatment is a huge proportion of a 12-year- old’s life.
We are pleased that the Bill, as it currently stands, includes specific provisions to prevent people with learning disabilities from requiring detention under the Act. The Government should take that approach for more people, especially our young people. Early intervention, delivered through regular check-ups and cutting waiting times for treatment by community services, is critical. We should not pretend that acute mental health services and in-patient care exist in a vacuum. The pressures they face are directly impacted by the quality of community services. We need stronger steps to ensure that fewer people require detention in the first place, especially children.
We are pleased that the Government are taking steps towards having mental health support in every school, for which we have long campaigned. We would like them to go further by ensuring a dedicated professional in every school. We are alarmed that the targets for mental health are being dropped, so I press the Government for assurances that the upcoming 10-year plan will ensure that children who are referred can expect swift and efficient support and treatment, with binding duties on health bodies to deliver that.
Alongside this Bill, what requirements and resources will ICBs have for preventing mental health crises? As part of that, will the Department make specific changes to CAMHS?
Dr Evans
The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point about the pressure on CAMHS. In Leicestershire, about 45% of CAMHS referrals are for things like autism and ADHD, and the problem is that it takes a lot of services away from those who have eating disorders or depression, or who self-harm. Does he believe there is scope to reorganise services to make sure they are appropriate where there needs to be treatment? A child suffering with severe anxiety and self-harming tendencies should not be on a pathway with someone who has autism, for example. Has he given any thought to how this Bill might be a way of opening that door?
Dr Chambers
On the surface, what the shadow Minister says seems logical and makes sense. I am not a mental health clinician, so I want to be really careful about pushing in one direction. Whether someone has an eating disorder or is waiting for a diagnosis of something like ADHD, the waiting times are too long. We must better structure a system that ensures that everyone gets healthcare when they need it, rather than prioritising what we perceive as most important.
One of the most heartbreaking things that I hear from parents in Winchester, who are worried sick, is that young teenagers with an eating disorder have been told that they have to hit a lower BMI to reach the threshold to qualify for treatment. That is essentially saying that someone has to be sicker for longer. No one would ever say, “We’ll wait until your cancer reaches stage 4 before we start treatment,” but that is happening with eating disorders. The treatment will end up being longer, more complicated, more costly for the taxpayer and maybe less successful.
A question often comes up—the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon alluded to this—about the pressures on local authorities to deliver mental health care. Actually, the question is “How we can afford not to deliver it?” People with mental health disorders are ending up in A&E or prison and costing police time. It costs £52,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give them the community interventions that might stop them going there in the first place.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Labour Government are working on a range of early interventions for young people in the area of mental health and to stop them spiralling into crime, such as the Young Futures hubs and introducing mental health support in every single school. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but it sits outside the Bill, and there is plenty that the Government are doing. Regrettably, there will always be a need, at certain times, for a young person to be under a section 2 notice and to be brought into care for a period of time, for their own safety. That is unavoidable and will be the right thing for that individual, but there is so much work being done outside this Bill to help young people and others with their mental health.
Dr Chambers
We support all efforts to keep young people happy and healthy in their communities. I visited Winchester Youth Counselling recently, where pupils can self-refer to talk through their issues. That does not involve any clinical personnel. It is hugely impactful and cost-effective and is part of the community. We support those community hubs.
Amendment 47 would specify risk factors for detention for people on the register of people at risk of detention under clause 4, including homelessness, addiction, domestic abuse, miscarriage and traumatic birth, experience of armed conflict, and bereavement. For anyone, including people with learning disabilities, life events can have a profound impact on mental ill health and can drive mental disorders. Well over a third of women with mental health problems have been a victim of domestic violence, and 50% of rough sleepers have mental health problems. The disastrous impact that bereavement can have on anxiety and depression, which are key factors in suicide, has been well documented.
It seems obvious, frustratingly, that public services do not currently reflect that key fact. There are no registers of bereaved children to ensure that they get the right support in the community and in school. There are no registers of veterans, despite their far higher risk of mental ill health and suicide. Women who have suffered a miscarriage do not receive an automatic referral, including to mental health services. The Government need to ensure that people can get mental health assessment and support at key points in their life, including the most traumatic moments.
Dr Chambers
I do not know the best place for it to be held. That is an important point. For a lot of the issues that Members are bringing up, we are not expecting there to be answers today. However, we want to ensure that they are all being considered, given that the subject might not return to Parliament for another 40 years.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I have a question about the list of risk factors that has been provided. Is there not a concern that it might be too prescriptive or restrictive, and that putting it in primary legislation prevents local authorities or ICBs from widening it, from having registers and risk factors that might be appropriate to their areas, and from focusing on what the appropriate level of care is that they are best placed to meet?
Dr Chambers
That is a very insightful point. The list could be longer and is not meant to be exclusive. I am not sure of the answer to the hon. Lady’s question but, taking a step back, we know that the single most common cause of death in women 12 months after giving birth is suicide, and there is no proactive automatic care. If a person is addicted to alcohol, they are admitted to hospital for treatment for their physical symptoms. When they are physically well enough to go home and they are discharged, there is no automatic enrolment or follow-up in mental health care. I would not want to bring in a system, as the hon. Lady says, that ends up being too prescriptive. However, at the moment, we have one that is not prescriptive enough. I could list a handful of demographics of people who desperately need that proactive care.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The purpose of this part of the legislation is for ICBs to keep a register of anyone who is diagnosed with autism or a learning disability. Patients who are already under a clinical team already have a risk assessment, which covers all the areas that the hon. Gentleman is specifying. As a result of the amendment, would we not be duplicating information about risks that already exists for most patients with their clinical teams?
Dr Chambers
The point of having an at-risk list is that ideally there is proactive contact with people—perhaps in quite a soft way, and perhaps through community hubs, as we have discussed—before they demonstrate a severe mental health crisis. I assume that the people the hon. Gentleman is talking about have already been admitted to hospital and have received treatment, and that they are being followed up after they have been discharged. That is not a proactive list; it is a reactive register. Am I correct? I apologise if I have misunderstood his question.
Sojan Joseph
Anyone who is under the care of a clinical team for their mental health has a risk assessment. That is basic paperwork, which is completed by the clinicians. That risk assessment covers everything that is specified in the amendment. The purpose of this part of the legislation is for ICBs to have a register. However, ICBs will not be providing direct care; that will be provided by the clinicians. Those patients who are under any clinical team have a risk assessment that covers all the points in the amendment. My point is that the amendment would duplicate some of that paperwork.
Dr Chambers
I will not argue with an esteemed Member who has the hon. Gentleman’s background in mental health. I take his point as it stands.
Gregory Stafford
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member’s argument. I do not disagree with anything in it; I just fail to see how the amendment fits with the clause that we are discussing, which I think may be the point that the hon. Member for Ashford is making.
As far as I can tell, clause 4 is about producing a register of people who have a learning disability or autism, who are at risk of being detained for a mental health episode and for whom those risk factors are active, for example because they have been sectioned before or have presented at A&E. Those are specific incidences. What the hon. Member for Winchester is talking about is more wide-ranging; it is not about touchpoints in the same sense. I can see how he could potentially say, “Well, domestic abuse has led to a mental health episode and therefore to a presentation at A&E or in the system.” However, if we put in societal factors, for want of a better phrase, we could end up putting most people on the list, because most people will have experienced a bereavement. I get what the hon. Member is trying to do, but I fail to see how the amendment matches the overall purpose of clause 4.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. In my maiden speech, I focused primarily on mental health and on the fact that there are so many demographics of people who we know are at significantly higher risk of suicide and mental ill health than the general population. Whether the issue is more appropriately addressed in the Bill or outside it, but using the Bill as a mechanism to highlight it and to cause the proactive engagement of other relevant Departments and other pieces of legislation, I am determined that we are not going to discuss the biggest piece of mental health legislation in 40 years and not even have a discussion about how we proactively engage with groups of people who we know are at very high risk of mental health issues.
Dr Chambers
I will carry on, if that is okay.
Our social and health services need to see the whole person, including their social needs and the factors in their environment that threaten their wellbeing. Trying to treat a mental disorder but failing to account for that person’s lack of housing, which drove their anxiety and depression in the first place, is doomed to fail. A lack of support for a child who has lost their parents at a young age could lead to significant harmful consequences further down the line.
There are a huge range of areas that require change, but for now we would like to press the Minister on three specific issues. We understand that some of them may turn out not to be within the scope of this Bill, but it is still important that they be addressed in some capacity.
Will the Government finally implement a register of all bereaved children to ensure that they get the support they need? Will the Government ensure that all women who go through miscarriage, stillbirth or traumatic birth access mental health support quickly and effectively? Will the Government establish a veterans register to ensure that those who have served in the armed forces and who face particular challenges as a result get the tailored mental health support that they need and do not reach the point of requiring detention?
The Chair
I need to remind the hon. Member that issues that are not within the scope of the Bill are not within the scope of the debate—but we have let you get away with it this time.
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 8, 47 and 9 to clause 4, which seek to expand the scope of the at-risk register, define risk factors and protect children and young people from unnecessary detention under the Mental Health Act.
Let me start by acknowledging the intent behind the proposals. There is genuine merit in ensuring that those who are at risk of detention, particularly children, are visible to the system before crisis point. That view is shared on both sides of the House. I also share the concern that we are too often intervening too late, after a child or young person has already reached breaking point; I would add families to that, because they also bear a lot of the brunt, especially when it comes to waiting. By extension, when there are waiting lists, as the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, the clinicians themselves—often the GP—will struggle to deal with patients and families when they do not have the clinical expertise necessary for the most severe interventions.
Amendment 9, which would include all under-18s at risk of detention on the register, reflects that preventive ambition. Likewise, the proposed list of risk factors, including bereavement, homelessness and domestic abuse, rightly recognises the social determinants of mental ill health, which are all too often overlooked. However, I have some reservations about the proposals in their current form.
First, on the register for all under-18s, expanding the duty so broadly raises serious questions about safeguarding, data protection and deliverability. Children and young people are already subject to multiple overlapping systems, from social care to CAMHS and education, health and care plans. Before laying on a new national register, we should ask what safeguards will be in place, who will manage the data, and how it will integrate with existing responsibilities such as those under the Children Act 1989 and the special educational needs frameworks.
Secondly, although I agree that we must understand the drivers of detention, the list of mandatory risk factors, including miscarriage, bereavement and even armed conflict—all of which are profoundly serious—could widen the scope of the register so far that it loses operational focus, as we have heard. That is why the Opposition have tabled a later amendment to define it as childhood trauma instead, which is a more encompassing way of dealing with it. Also, we risk casting the net too wide without necessarily improving outcomes for targeting the right support or, conversely, missing something. For example, looking at that list, I would argue that gang violence or gang involvement is a key factor that Members on both sides of the House would agree is very pertinent, and yet it is not mentioned. Therein lies a problem.
Thirdly, amendment 9 seeks to prevent the detention of children and young people unless it is absolutely necessary, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support, but how do the Lib Dems propose that it be enforced? What levers are in place if a service fails to deliver that community-based service? Without resourcing CAMHS, investing in crisis alternatives and reforming commissioning models, the duty risks being symbolic rather than systemic. In essence, the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to make the point that we should have these discussions.
Although I support the goals of the amendments—visibility, prevention and early support—I am not sure that the specific mechanisms in them are the best way to safeguard achieving them. Instead, I wonder whether consideration has been given to piloting regional early intervention panels for under-18s at risk of admission, building on existing safeguards in educational frameworks, rather than creating separate registers. Alternatively, we could include risk indicators in statutory guidance, rather than setting them rigidly in legislation, which I think was the point made by the Government. That would allow some clinical judgment and flexibility. Above all, we must ensure that ICBs are not just given duties, but held to account. How are they are going to deliver them? That means having the right metrics and oversight and a strong role for advocacy and families.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making some useful observations about best practice. One of the real injustices that we are seeing with detention at the moment is the racial disparities in detention rates. One could argue that such a disparity is a potential risk factor, but behind it is something that we should be addressing through dealing with inequalities in the mental health system, particularly the unwarranted variation in practice from clinicians perhaps making discriminatory judgments in these cases. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is another reason why we should not be over-specifying some of these points where we see associations between risk factors and detention rates under the Mental Health Act, and that therefore we should not be including them in the Bill?
Dr Evans
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s end point and with the thrust of what she says. Causality is not causation, and we need to be very careful. When we get to the later clauses of the Bill, that will be at the forefront of our discussion.
We cannot deny the reason we are having this legislative debate in the first place: the observation that black men in particular are subject to community treatment orders far more than any other group in the country. However, we must not make a lazy causal analysis and say, “Well, just because that is the case.” For example, black men have a higher risk of prostate cancer, and white people a higher chance of coeliac disease, because of the genetic basis. Is there something in that? Is there systemic bias by clinicians, as she hinted? That all needs to be explored.
The hon. Member for Shipley beat me to the punch when it comes to my closing statement. We owe it to our children and young people not to legislate in haste, so I welcome the spirit of the amendments, and I welcome the debate, but we must be careful to ensure that we are truly legislating for and defining exactly what we know. Otherwise, we risk creating other inequalities and unintended consequences or, worse still, a system that becomes even more flabby and difficult to manoeuvre through. That is the last thing we want for our patients, clinicians and the public.
Gregory Stafford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I have some criticisms of the specifics of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, but I entirely support him and congratulate him on the passion with which he spoke about them. As I remember, his maiden speech touched on a number of these issues. Whether they are within the scope of the Bill is for the Clerks and the Committee to decide, but he made several extraordinarily good points that I hope the Government will take away. If the Bill is not the appropriate place for them, there should be another avenue.
The lead amendment is about the ICB register. It would insert a new subsection to extend the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to cover all children and young people who meet certain risk criteria. As drafted, the duty to maintain a register under clause 4 may not explicitly include all under-18s. Therefore, the amendment would ensure that children and young people are proactively identified and supported before reaching a crisis point that might lead to detention.
Clearly, there are positives. As the hon. Member stated, early intervention might help to prevent unnecessary detention by identifying risk earlier, which is especially important for children. Likewise, there is a strong argument about equity and care to ensure that young people receive the same proactive planning as adults. That would clearly lead to improved safeguarding through better tracking of vulnerable minors in the mental health system. A corollary to that would be better data collection on youth mental health needs, which I think we would all support. We would be able to use that information to support more informed policymaking and resource decisions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth highlighted, however, and as I highlighted in the debates on other clauses, there would clearly be a resource demand, especially on ICBs, from expanding registers and services. Likewise, there is the complexity of implementation, because defining who qualifies as being “at risk” may be subjective. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Winchester, when he sums up on the amendments, to give us some indication of how “at risk” would be defined, or whether that would simply be down to the mental health professional or some other medical professional. There are also, of course, privacy and consent concerns related to maintaining a register for minors. Again, the hon. Member may have thought about some practical things that could assuage my concerns about that.
There may also be a risk of stigmatisation. We have to be very careful, especially with children and young people, because being labelled or treated differently due to being on the register would not help their mental health. We would have to have some really strict privacy and data-sharing controls to ensure that they were protected within the proposed system.
As I said in my intervention, I entirely support the aims of amendment 47 because it would specify the risk factors for detention for those on the register of people at risk of detention under clause 4. The criteria for identifying such individuals are left to be defined in regulations as the Bill stands. The amendment would mandate in law specific evidence-based risk factors—which I agree are risk factors for the issues that the hon. Member is talking about, particularly those linked to trauma and social disadvantage—rather than leaving them to discretion.
At a general level, the amendment recognises the role of trauma and social determinants in mental health crises—I congratulate the hon. Member on clearly explaining some of the factors. Going back to our debate on the previous group of amendments, that would improve the early identification of individuals at risk, promote preventive care, strengthen equity and provide clarity and consistency. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I am concerned about prescribing a relatively small list and therefore limiting the clause’s flexibility—there may be risk factors that are not listed in the amendment or ones that we have not even thought of.
Jen Craft
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill makes allowances for the Secretary of State to introduce appropriate risk factors via regulation, and that it is more appropriate to list the risk factors that ICBs should take into account in secondary legislation issued by the Secretary of State than in primary legislation, as amendment 47 seeks to do?
Gregory Stafford
I agree with the hon. Lady; that is my understanding, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that when he sums up. The flexibility in the clause is one of its strengths.
Dr Evans
Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that it makes sense to agree with the Government? The impact of social media and the evidence coming out about using mobile phones and about the impact of certain sites have been debated in this House for the last five years—since I have been here—and there have been advances. Legislation has been brought forward, but there is a growing consensus on both sides of the House that it never quite keeps up. Allowing the Secretary of State to add risk factors as they come up, even in policy guidance, might be a shrewder way to future-proof the Bill against those difficulties. In 1983, we were not discussing or even thinking about the likes of Facebook, yet here we are. With the advent of artificial intelligence, who knows where we will be in another 40 years?
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To touch on his point about social media, it is a very useful tool, but is deeply pervasive and can cause the bullying, harassment and mental health issues that he describes. As far as I can tell, the risk factors in amendment 47 would not cover something like that unless it was part of something else—for example, part of domestic abuse, armed conflict and so on.
Anna Dixon
This discussion of the list of risk factors throws up a concern for me: one of the risk factors that has been facing families and other constituents of mine in Shipley for some years is the inability to get appropriate support for their children from children’s social care, for example, because there are very long waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services. Even when people have EHCPs, they are often not fulfilled. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we need to address special educational needs and disabilities and children’s social care and put those things in place, as the Government are doing? Children with autism and learning disabilities will remain at high risk of much more complex mental health needs if they do not get the support they need at an early stage.
Gregory Stafford
Once again, the hon. Lady tempts me to make a party political point, but I shall resist. On her general point, there are factors, such as the ones she described, that would not necessarily fall within the list in amendment 47. [Interruption.]
Gregory Stafford
Thank you, Ms Furniss. I was coming to my closing remarks on amendment 47. Suffice it to say that some of the concerns that I raised on amendment 8 about the administrative burdens, the data sharing, and the potential safeguarding and privacy concerns transfer through. Again, perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester could give some reassurance on that when summing up.
Amendment 9, as far as I can tell, would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the intention behind the amendment may be worthy, there is a lack of clarity in the drafting? In particular, it is unclear what “seek to ensure” means and how that would be legally defined.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is right; although a number of the Liberal Democrats are entirely worthy, there are some concerns about the drafting, which could give rise to ambiguity, legal loopholes and definitional issues. In that example, I do not think that “seek to ensure” is helpful. When the hon. Member for Winchester is summing up, perhaps he might explain how “seek to ensure” can be robustly defined within the law, or if it cannot be, suggest a different form of wording that he may wish to use in a future amendment if this amendment fails to be agreed.
Part II of the Mental Health Act 1983 covers the powers to detain individuals for assessment and treatment. Detention can clearly be traumatic, especially for children and young people. Amendment 9 reflects a growing consensus that detention should be the last resort— I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that—and that community-based preventive and therapeutic alternatives should be prioritised. Again, I think it would be very hard to disagree with that ambition.
On the positive side, community-based care is clearly better than detention in most cases, and, if we can get to a point where people are assessed earlier, as is the intention of some of the other amendments, clearly—hopefully—that would lead to community-based care and not detention. The amendment would also protect children’s rights and support the trauma-informed approaches to mental health that were raised previously regarding amendment 47.
The amendment could also reduce the long-term harm associated with institutionalisation and potentially coercive treatment. As we have heard from Members on both sides, that would align with best practice in child and adolescent mental health services and it would promote and encourage a system of accountability by making ICBs and local authorities responsible for proactive care planning. All of that is extraordinarily laudable.
On the potential downsides, there is an ambiguity about the enforcement of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, because of the lack of legal force or clarity in some of the phraseology. There would be also resource implications and, if there are resource limitations at the ICB or local authority level, that might hinder their ability to provide adequate, community-based alternatives.
I do not say that as an excuse for not supporting the amendment, but the hon. Member for Winchester has to understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I want local authorities and ICBs in every area to be entirely fully funded and resourced—and frankly, I do not think the Government’s cut of 50%, or indeed more in some ICBs, will do anything to help community-based care—there would be resource challenges. There would also be implementation challenges in areas where mental health services are already underfunded or overstretched that could lead to delays in care.
This is the key question that I ask the hon. Member to respond to in his summing up. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that all people of all ages get the best, most appropriate mental health care as early as possible. But in an imperfect world, if there are potential delays in care because community services are struggling to find alternatives to detention, the unintended consequence could be that someone may not be treated at all because of the onus on defined community-based care rather than detention. Will the hon. Member explain how that would work?
I draw my remarks to a close by saying I, certainly, and the Opposition, entirely agree with the ambitions of the amendments. However, some practical and legal issues would need to be ironed out before I could wholeheartedly support them.
Stephen Kinnock
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his amendments. I understand the intent behind amendments 8 and 9, but the clauses on registers and the associated duties on integrated care boards and local authorities are specifically aimed at people with a learning disability and autistic people, because of the detrimental outcomes that these groups of people may suffer when detained.
We recognise the concern around the treatment of children and young people, which is why we have several provisions in the Bill aimed at improving their care. However, dynamic support registers are particularly tailored to the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people, and have been established in NHS England’s policy for some time. We do not have evidence that they would be an appropriate mechanism for wider cohorts.
We do recognise that bereavement, miscarriage, the experience of trauma and difficult life transitions can all have a bearing on mental health. However, access to mental health support is based on clinical need, not on the circumstances that might give rise to that need.
Dr Evans
The Minister is right about the registers, but I did notice that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduced the unique identifier number. That came about after the Lord Laming report into Victoria Climbié, who was “lost in the system.” It also builds on the work of the Children’s Commissioner, which found that around 10,000 children are not in school. Is there a role for getting some of the identifiers that we are looking at here in place along with that unique identifier number?
Equally, how does that unique identifier input into the Bill’s provisions on risk registers, now that that piece of legislation has passed Third Reading? There will be an interaction, but the unique identifier is much broader and the dynamic support register is held slightly differently. What work have the Government done to ensure that there is bridging and understanding about what that would look like, not only in the short term but in the long term?
Stephen Kinnock
The dynamic support register is specifically focused on people, both children and adults, who have learning disabilities and people who are autistic. I think it is quite a separate thing. I am not familiar with the detail of that education legislation but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is a very broad identifier not based at all on the clinical conditions of the persons, as I understand it, whereas this is very focused and specific for people with the conditions that we are debating. I do not think that there would be a connection between the two.
Dr Evans
Let me take the example of a young person with deteriorating or fluctuating problems. They may be in school or out of school. We know that people with autism and learning disabilities are at greater risk of abuse and of being taken advantage of. If the Minister is not aware of it, would he look at how this duality could work, because clearly there is scope?
One benefit that the Government argued for in having this unique number was that it could be shared across these registers. It sounds as if there is work that could be done. The Minister is absolutely right, and I am not suggesting merging the two, but on the risk register, there could be a nice piece of crossover work to pull that all together, so that the information moves across agencies. What we know from people with severe learning disabilities, autism and mental health issues is that they are often in contact with multiple agencies at multiple times—from social services to, potentially, the police, the NHS, dentistry and, of course, educational settings, which might be multiplicitous. Is that a consideration that the Minister will take forward?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I am certainly happy to discuss that with officials, just as long as everybody is clear that there are two very different things going on here, with different types of risk and therefore different agencies. But I am all in favour of joined-up government wherever we can deliver it.
I turn now to amendment 47. It is important that robust measures are in place to support people with a learning disability and autistic people who are at risk of admission. That is why the Bill will, for the first time, put dynamic support registers on a statutory footing and, via regulations, set out the factors that the Secretary of State considers increase the probability of someone being detained. That is the most appropriate approach in order to provide sufficient flexibility for updates in line with emerging best practice, evidence and clinical and commissioner understanding.
As the factors are likely to be updated regularly, returning them to Parliament at every such instance would be disproportionate and unmanageable. Additionally, although putting them in primary legislation would not prevent the Secretary of State from providing and updating a longer list in regulations, having some factors but not others in the Bill could be perceived to give them primacy—for example, having a history of in-patient admissions or presenting in A&E in crisis. That could have unintended consequences and divert support from those most at risk.
We will of course engage with expert stakeholders, who are best placed to advise on what the list of risk factors for detention should be, taking into account the existing NHS England policy on dynamic support registers. I am pleased to provide assurance to the Committee that current NHS England policy provides examples of factors such as those in the amendment—for example, having no fixed address, having drug and alcohol addiction and having had significant life events such as bereavement and abuse. For those reasons, I hope the hon. Member for Winchester will not press his amendments.
Dr Chambers
I know how much the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon enjoys speaking in Bill Committees—we were on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee together a few months ago—and I am really pleased that our amendments have given so much material for discussion. I really appreciate the input from Members on both sides of the Committee; it has been really insightful, useful and constructive.
It has been rightly pointed out that the current state of local authorities—their funding and their capacity—means that they might not be able to deliver the more holistic care we are pushing for in the amendments, but I do not think that the Mental Health Bill should be limited by the current state of local services and funding. If that is the underlying problem, that is what should be addressed, not the measures in the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
I accept that we should aim for the pinnacle and the best. What I was trying to say was that because the amendments restrict us, rather than giving us the space to, hopefully, reach the pinnacle, or to explore other options if we cannot, they could have unintended consequences if we cannot reach that pinnacle.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman may want to take these points together. We drew attention to proposed new section 125. Subsection (1) relates to integrated care boards, while subsection (2) relates to local authorities. They do exactly what he wants: strengthen the requirements on ICBs and local authorities to better meet the needs of people with autism or learning disabilities in order to avoid detention. The very essence of the Bill therefore provides the duties that the Minister reassured us on in response to my earlier point. The expectation is that commissioners will meet needs as identified in these dynamic registers.
Dr Chambers
I thank both hon. Members for their input and their valid points. We appreciate the Minister addressing these concerns. We will not press amendment 9 or 47, but we would like to vote on amendment 8.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 9, line 38, at end insert—
“125ZF Registers: duty to maintain crisis accommodation
(1) In exercising its functions under section 125E, an integrated care board must seek to ensure that there is appropriate crisis accommodation for people with autism or a learning disability within its area.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘appropriate crisis accommodation’ means accommodation which—
(a) is designed to meet the specific needs of people with autism or learning disability during periods of acute mental health crisis;
(b) is staffed by persons with specialist training in supporting people with autism or a learning disability;
(c) maintains appropriate staffing ratios determined by guidance issued by the Secretary of State; and
(d) provides a safe alternative to detention under section 136 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the exercise of functions under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism or learning disability as one of its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Report: sufficient commissioning services for people with autism or learning disability
(1) Within four months of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan to allocate sufficient resources for commissioning services regarding the treatment and detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities to ensure operability of provisions in this Act.
(2) The plan must include—
(a) revised assumptions of the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who may require detention under this Act;
(b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand after the 28-day detention period;
(c) plans for data collection to support commissioning sufficient services;
(d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource;
(e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training to carry out support, diagnostic, and treatment plans.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a plan within four months to ensure sufficient services, resources, data, and training are in place to support autistic people and those with learning disabilities under the Act.
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Assessment: provision of services for people with autism or learning disability
(1) Each financial year, an integrated care board must—
(a) conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of services within its area for people with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act;
(b) publish the results of the assessment; and
(c) publish an action plan to address any gaps in provision identified.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of—
(a) the availability of appropriate crisis accommodation;
(b) the availability of appropriate community support services;
(c) the adequacy of training for responsible bodies and individuals to carry out support, diagnostic and treatment plans; and
(d) the experiences of people with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers.
(3) The integrated care board must consult the following in conducting the assessment—
(a) persons with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers;
(b) the relevant local authority or authorities;
(c) providers of relevant services; and
(d) such other persons as the integrated care board considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the conduct of assessments under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to conduct and publish annual assessments of the provision available for people with autism or learning disability at risk of detention and to prepare action plans to address any identified gaps.
Amendment 24, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Report: services for people with autism or learning disability
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the availability of appropriate accommodation for people with autism or learning disability detained under this Act;
(b) the number of instances where appropriate accommodation could not be found within statutory timeframes;
(c) the progress towards implementation of sections 3 and 4 of the Mental Health Act 2025 and the impact of any delays to implementation on people with autism or a learning disability; and
(d) progress made towards meeting the needs of people with autism or a learning disability without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.
(2) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) people with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers;
(b) integrated care boards;
(c) local authorities; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the availability of appropriate placements for people with autism or learning disabilities and on progress implementing the relevant provisions of the Act.
Amendment 21, in clause 58, page 68, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for sections 3, 4 and 21 to come into force in full no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would establish an accelerated implementation timeline for provisions related to autism and learning disabilities, requiring them to be fully implemented within 2 years.
New clause 11—Costed plan to ensure community provision for individuals with learning disabilities and autism who are at risk of detention—
“(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a fully costed plan for how Integrated Care Boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people who are at risk of detention under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
(2) As part of the development of that plan, a formal consultation process must take place to determine how the decision to enact the relevant parts of this Act will be made.
(3) The consultation must include input from relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people;
(b) carers for people with learning disabilities and autistic people;
(c) healthcare professionals; and
(d) advocacy groups.”
This new clause requires a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under Part 2 of the 1983 Act, informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders.
Zöe Franklin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and I am sure many in this room will remember his passionate speech about his constituent Declan Morrison, who has inspired many of these amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help with my notes.
Amendment 20 would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism and learning disability, as one its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention. Currently, just over 2,000 people with autism or learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals for an average of five years. Over half of delayed discharges are due to a lack of suitable housing or accommodation.
The crisis provision created in Cambridgeshire after my hon. Friend’s constituent Declan passed away was operating at 90% capacity before funding was withdrawn. When we hear Declan’s story, we realise the severe implications behind the amendment and why it is being put forward. We must also recognise that there has been a significant increase in section 136 use over the past 10 years. Many of the suites being used are outdated, unable to keep up with demand and unfit for purpose.
The amendment would therefore make appropriate crisis accommodation a statutory duty, and I hope all Members would agree that there is a desperate need for such accommodation, specifically for autistic people and those with learning disabilities. It would also require there to be specialist training for staff. We have already referenced today how important training is when it comes to protecting those who are in crisis and who need support. Finally, it would provide for safe, alternative detention under section 136, preventing situations such as that experienced by the hon. Friend’s constituent, where a vulnerable person is held in inappropriate emergency settings for extended periods.
Amendments 10 and 22 are both designed to ensure that there are sufficient resources for people with autism or learning disabilities. On amendment 10, it is crucial that community services are properly resourced to meet the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities. Too many of us will have seen how inadequate community services make detention and in-patient care much more likely, which is worse for the person detained, far more costly and unsustainable in the long term. Our amendments place duties on the integrated care board at the local level, and the Secretary of State at the national level, to be transparent about gaps in provision and to take steps to eliminate them.
Amendment 22 would require an integrated care board to conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of the relevant services within its area for people with autism or learning disabilities who have specified risk factors for detention, and to set out a plan to respond to those findings. There is currently an absence of suitable placements, with over 100 places that were contacted having no single bed available. We cannot continue with such a situation, given the significant implications when things go wrong.
Through those amendments, we are asking for an assessment, because there is currently no systematic assessment of whether services match demand, which is crucial to ensuring that the Bill is workable in the long term. It is also acknowledged that it may take 10 years to fully implement the Bill and to ensure that additional clinical and judicial staff are trained.
Amendment 21 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. It would establish an accelerated implementation timeline for provisions related to autism and learning disabilities, requiring those provisions to be fully implemented within two years. Currently, just over 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals who are being let down by the system.
The Government have sadly already missed the targets, and we cannot afford to wait another decade—people’s lives are too important. In fact, the UN Human Rights Committee has called on the UK to end the detention of people with disabilities based solely on their disability. Every day that we wait means more people at risk of tragic outcomes. As I said, the amendment would establish a two-year deadline, and it recognises that these are some of the most urgent reforms in the Bill. I ask the Government to consider them as a priority.
Finally, amendment 24, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would establish an accelerated implementation timeline of services related to autism and learning disabilities, by again requiring them to be implemented within two years. I reiterate what we heard in the Chamber, which I am sure we will all hear in our inboxes and in conversations with our residents: it is crucial that we implement these changes at pace; otherwise, we risk failing individuals with autism and learning disabilities further.
Dr Evans
I will direct my remarks at new clause 11 and the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Guildford. New clause 11 seeks a clear, costed and consultative plan to help ensure that integrated care boards and local authorities are properly equipped to deliver the community-based services that individuals with learning disabilities and autism need and, of course, deserve, so that they are not unnecessarily detained under part 2 of the Mental Health Act.
Let me begin by recognising the good intentions across the House when it comes to reducing inappropriate and prolonged detentions in mental health settings. There is broad consensus that detention should be the last resort. However, good intentions must be matched by a concrete, deliverable plan because, as the evidence has shown, too many people are being held in hospitals or other facilities, not because of clinical need, but because the right community support simply is not there.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 11, which could potentially solve funding issues I have raised. He mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. Will he suggest that the Minister looks at ensuring that, if new clause 11 is not passed today, the details in it are fed through into the plan? When it is published, which the Minister has indicated will be relatively soon, the information and outcomes my hon. Friend is trying to achieve through the new clause could be in it.
Dr Evans
Far be it from me to tell the Minister what to do, but if I were a wise Minister, I might look at where my predecessors had benefitted from further information and where they may have stumbled. The Bill has been looked at for a number of years by many people from outside and inside the House. Many have been involved throughout its progress, including a former Prime Minister, who tabled amendments in the other place. There is definitely the ability to learn from what the last Government found and to use that information in the kinds of plans that we need.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman elaborates on the great history of the previous Conservative Government. From where I am sitting, the record is less rose-tinted—but perhaps I am wearing different spectacles. Might he return to the substance of new clause 11, which, it seems to me, is about community provision? I return to the points that I raised earlier about proposed new section 125E. I do not see what new clause 11 adds to the Bill in regard to duties relating to the commissioning of services. I encourage him to address the specifics of the amendment.
Dr Evans
I shall be interested to know what the hon. Lady’s rose-tinted spectacles show when we consider Scotland or Wales. One of my biggest frustrations in debates about the NHS is that in each nation health is devolved, each is run by a different political party, and each has challenges. We in this place enjoy the political football, scoring points without seeing what is blindingly obvious: that across the board, across all the countries, health and mental health services are struggling to keep pace and keep our population healthy with the workforce and technology provided.
Dr Evans
Let me address these points, then I will be happy to give way. When we come to clause stand part, I will address the other amendments, but I specifically said that my comments would be on new clause 11. When scrutinising the Bill, it is important that we talk about how we will deliver, as the hon. Member for Shipley rightly pointed out. It is entirely right to try to put together a plan to ensure that the Government are held accountable. We are not saying how the plan should be formulated; we simply stipulate that a plan should be formulated and introduced. That is a very different argument.
My concern about previous Lib Dem amendments was that they were too specific. We have to get the balance right. New clause 11 simply provides that the Government have 18 months to introduce a fully costed plan, so that we can again have a debate in this House. Especially as a spending review will, I believe, be announced tomorrow, we need to consider how we will match budgets in the future. We accept that it is a 10-year project.
Dr Evans
I am still addressing the hon. Lady’s first point. The Conservatives understand that it will take a long time to put in place, but a credible plan is needed. There was a credible plan in place, as I have said, in the 2011 and 2016 strategies, with the funding to match. I use that as an illustration because it is provides an apt evidence base for the new clause. Otherwise, I might well be challenged by someone saying, “What is your evidence base of a delivery network and a delivery ability from a Government?” I hope that by talking through these points, I am giving the Government the chance to learn from the mistakes we made and from the way we took forward mental health. Regardless of political party, I hope hon. Members that the debate has moved on a long way from when we started in 2010 with the work done partly under the coalition Government. I will now take the intervention.
Jen Craft
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reflecting on the fact that mistakes were made by the previous Government—acknowledgment of that is often sorely lacking. I respect the fact that he says that the debate has moved on, but does he accept that while the debate may have moved on, policy to enact actual change for people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, particularly those with learning disabilities and autism, has not kept pace? The number of people in locked units, under detention, has remained solid, without much wavering, for the past 14 years. Despite the acknowledgement that this is a scandal, and we should all hang our head in shame that it continues to this day, not much has been done to get them out of those units.
While we look back on the history of the past 14 years, focusing specifically on the people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, let us remember that Lord Darzi pointed out in his report that some of the facilities are more redolent of the Victorian era than of a modern mental health care service. Perhaps those who were in government in those 14 years should reflect on why that is the case.
Dr Evans
There is quite a lot to unpack in the hon. Lady’s intervention. As I pointed out, reflecting on what the previous Government learned is also important—for example, when considering Wales. Objectively, the data shows that Wales is struggling more than England, and the same is true of Scotland. Wales and Scotland have been run by different parties from England for a long time, so my natural inclination is to attack back and say, “Well, actually, the Conservatives did better,” but my fundamental point is that we all need to do better because we have seen the problems rising. As I mentioned, over the last 10 years the number of people turning up in mental health facilities has increased by a quarter.
On the hon. Lady’s point about people with autism and learning disabilities, I sat on the Health and Social Care Committee that looked specifically at that issue. We looked at some of the best models in the world, including that of Trieste, where community care is in place. When we took evidence, we found that most people were supportive of that model, but fearful people did come forward to say that the community was not the best place for their daughter, son, husband or wife. Managing the nuance is really important. It takes time to get this right. In 2018, when the last Government looked to legislate on this issue, there was pre-legislative scrutiny, which does not always happen in this place. It was done because there was fundamental agreement that we must get the legislation right, because it applies to the most vulnerable people.
The hon. Lady is right that Lord Darzi identified three shifts that will be really important, but when he looked at this issue, he missed a fundamental point. His report starts from 2010, but when I was a junior doctor— I qualified in 2007—we had issues that affect the culture now: for example, how we managed MRSA and C. diff. That was not a brilliant time to be a patient. The medical training application service fiasco affected doctors applying for jobs so much that in 2004 the Government had to apologise and change the system, because so many people who wanted to get into specialist training could not go through that service.
We are still paying for IT infrastructure that the last Labour Government tried to introduce. The last report, in 2018, said that that cost the taxpayer almost £14 billion. We wonder why, when we try to make a shift to introduce more tech, as recommended by Darzi, people in the NHS are reticent, but they have been burnt by IT projects before. They have seen what happened under a Conservative Government, a coalition Government, and a Labour Government. All that has an immediate and impregnable effect on the legislation and the practicalities that we are dealing with today.
I am not trying to talk facetiously about the legislation; the point is to give some pragmatic direction and to actually say something tangible. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister hopefully supporting proposed new clause 11, which would give the Government the flexibility to have a plan that they choose, as is their democratic right, but also the safeguards to know that it will be delivered and we will not have more delay. There is a balance between making legislation in haste and making sure that we avoid inaction. Would the hon. Member for Shipley like to intervene?
Anna Dixon
Yes, briefly. I was trying to get the hon. Gentleman back to the point, which is people with autism and learning disabilities, rather than mental health policy in general. The point of reference I used earlier was the failure to deal with Winterbourne View in 2012. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made the point very well: if we get down to it, we are talking about community provision for people with learning disabilities and autism. Too many people remain institutionalised, too far from their family, friends and community. I was pointing at that failing. I encourage the hon. Member to get back to that point. Would you like to give clarity on what is within scope of the group of amendments that we are currently debating, Ms Furniss?
Dr Evans
You may want to set me straight, Ms Furniss, but as we have agreed, I will directly address those points in the clause 4 stand part discussion. The hon. Member for Shipley rightly talks about community settings, but where does she think primary care staff come from? They come through medical training. When we talk about the Darzi impact, it is important that we fully understand why people choose not to go into mental health or primary care and become a GP. Without establishing that, which is a problem that this Government have to deal with, we will run into real problems when it comes to delivery.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The new clause is incredibly important. We do not want vulnerable people to slip through the cracks and not receive the right support, and it is really important to ensure that there is consultation with the right stakeholders. I recently met with Down Syndrome Cheshire, and last year I met with the Cheshire West and Chester SEND accountability group. They said that one of the things they value most is being listened to so that they can inform the process. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a really crucial part of new clause 11?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend speaks to the heart of what we all know from our constituency day jobs, where many of us here in this place speak to outside organisations and families. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire talked passionately about the impacts and the sorry stories that we have all heard about. The whole point of this Bill is to make mental health care patient-centred, but also family and advocate-centred. That is a driving thrust of what the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was asking us for, and it is why we have enshrined the individual in the first clause of the Bill.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if we are committed to the principle enshrined on the front of the Bill, we need co-production. That must be more than a tick-box exercise. If the Government believe that the necessary plan is already in place, will the Minister say where that is covered, and would he put that plan in the House of Commons Library? Is it fully costed? Has it been fully consulted on? Will it be published within 18 months and incorporated in the NHS long-term plan? If not, how will the ICBs and local authorities be expected to deliver? How will the changes to NHS England affect plans to deliver the legislation? Having the legal duty to produce a costed plan will provide a focal point and fulcrum to build around, to ensure that the most serious mental health conditions receive the attention they need.
I know the Minister cares deeply and wants to do his best. He wants the legislation to be enacted as swiftly as possible. I also recognise the commitments and priorities facing the country, but this new clause is about turning good intentions into action. I simply aim to strengthen the hand of the Minister when it comes to negotiating with the Chancellor about funding, so that he has the evidence base required to bolster his position. I hope hon. Members across the Committee, especially on the Government Benches, see it as a supportive, sensible, balanced and practical solution to have this debate and then campaign with the Chancellor to get the money needed for the services.
Turning to the Lib Dem amendments, I begin by recognising the genuine intent behind amendments 10, 22, 24 and 21. Addressing the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities, particularly ensuring appropriate crisis accommodation and reducing unnecessary detention, is unquestionably important. That said, I have specific concerns about legislating for service provision in the Bill.
I understand why we do not legislate for the number of intensive care units, hospices or detox centres in the health system. There is an argument that that might be a good idea. Those are critical services, yet their commissioning and capacity are generally managed through policy funding decisions and local planning, rather than through statutory duties. Introducing a statutory duty for crisis accommodation risks unintended consequences. It may limit the flexibility of integrated care boards to respond to local needs, and could impose significant new resource burdens without clear funding commitments. That risks setting a precedent for increasingly prescriptive legislation across health and social care, which we should approach cautiously. We do not want to pit one condition against another.
On the proposed requirement on the Secretary of State to produce a commissioning plan within four months, I acknowledge the desire for a timely response. The choice of a four-month deadline, however, seems arbitrary and may not allow sufficient time for robust consultation and realistic planning. We need to be mindful that rushed plans can undermine long-term success.
On the proposed reporting requirements, although transparency is vital, I highlight that new clause 11, which we are proposing, would provide stronger and more detailed mechanisms to hold the Government to account on implementation and resource allocation, while allowing flexibility. We should focus on supporting those provisions rather than layer on multiple overlapping reporting duties, which risk duplication and confusion. In conclusion, the amendments raise important points and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sojan Joseph
I will briefly trot through the proposed amendments and new clause. We all know that the closure of learning disability hospitals was a gradual process. The reason was the institutionalisation of some of those patients, as seen in the Winterbourne View scandal. The aim was to create new community-based housing to look after people with learning disabilities and autism. Amendment 20 seeks to create appropriate fully staffed crisis accommodation. Will the Lib Dems clarify whether they are looking to create more in-patient settings? Are we going back to where we were years ago, or should we work with the new plan to create more community-based accommodation?
Not all patients with a learning disability or autism need detention or community-based accommodation. Many of them are looked after by their family members, so we also need to look into the support we are providing to carers, so that we can keep those people at home with their family member’s support.
I will keep this brief: as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, I recently met with many people who have lived experience of this. They want their views to be heard. They are not asking for more hospital settings; they are asking for more support, including for carers. I was pleased to see that the Minister for Care was there to engage with those people.
In the new NHS 10-year plan, the focus is on moving care from the hospitals to the community. Can the Minister clarify how we can make that happen? We have talked about that for many years, but we have never seen it happening. In my own experience practising in a mental health ward, many patients with a learning disability and autism were detained and, as the hon. Member said, kept in hospitals because we could not find a suitable place for them to be discharged to—it was not that they needed the hospital.
I think we are all talking about the same thing, but we need to find a solution. That is why the new NHS 10-year plan and its focus on moving care from the hospitals to the community is important. Again, can the Minister clarify how we will do that? The Government have already started the work, and the new commission, led by Baroness Casey, should also be looking into where we will find the social care support for carers and the community provision for people with learning disability, rather than just creating more crisis accommodations.
Dr Evans
The hon. Member mentioned Baroness Casey, for whom I have the utmost respect, but herein lies the problem: she is still currently undertaking a review for the Home Office that has now been delayed and has not concluded. This is at the same time that she is supposed to be looking at social care. The whole idea of an amendment that asks for a statutory plan is to stop these kind of slippages. Given his point about wanting to see progress, is that something that he would consider if he were voting on this new clause?
Sojan Joseph
I hope that Baroness Casey completes her commission work and gives us her report. It was promised in the Chamber that the initial report would be available within a year. Regardless of whether she is taking up another role, I hope there will not be any delay and that we get that report and a detailed report within three years. I am looking for a solid plan to fix this problem forever. I am not looking for sticking plasters or an immediate fix, but we need a plan, perhaps including a national care service. These are the people who are looking for a long-term solution to these problems.
The hon. Member asked about how I will vote; unfortunately, I will not be supporting new clause 11. The Government have already started some work, which is why I am specifically talking about the NHS 10-year plan to move care from hospitals to the community, along with the social care commission, which is looking into how we can get good progress on that. This is the answer; we need to get a long-term solution to this problem.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 20, 10, 22, 24 and 21, and set out why, although I think they are honourable in their intent, I am unable to support them today.
I will start with amendment 20. The purpose of the amendment is to require ICBs to ensure the availability of specialist crisis accommodation for people with autism and learning disabilities. The aim is to provide a safe and therapeutic alternative to detention, which I think we would all agree is a sensible course of action. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows police to remove an individual who is experiencing a mental health crisis from a public place to a place of safety. That can, on unfortunate occasions, lead to detention in inappropriate settings, which may include police cells. That can obviously be deeply harmful, particularly to those with conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder or other learning difficulties.
Jen Craft
I will be reasonably brief, as Members have covered a lot of what I was going to talk about.
The intent behind amendments 10 and 24 and new clause 11 is to address the issue raised by a number of organisations, such as Mencap, the National Autistic Society and the NHS Confederation, around the delay in particular clauses being switched on for people with autism or with a learning disability due to insufficient community services. The concern is that there is not, as yet, an articulation of what sufficient community services look like or how we will know when we have reached that point, so that we can turn on parts of the Act. There is a sufficient community backing in place for that to happen. Therefore, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we will know that we have reached the point where we can address the issues that clause 3 looks to tackle.
As the Conservative Members mentioned, there are concerns about funding and access to fairly scarce resources, and a concern that rolling out this provision could put undue burdens on people who are unable to deliver certain parts of it.
However, it would definitely be welcome to have an understanding of where we are heading, what “good” looks like and how we are going to get there, and what the Minister might see as a road map for community services to reach the point where clause 3 can be switched on, so that autistic people and people with a learning disability do not need to be detained under the Mental Health Act purely because there is insufficient support for them in the community to enable alternative provision. I would welcome any thoughts from the Minister about how those concerns about the operability of the Bill can be addressed. If they will not be addressed via these amendments, how will they be taken forward?
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to make a few remarks on new clause 11, which would require a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under part II of the 1983 Act.
We need to ensure that there is a fully cost-effective plan with accountability to support those with learning disabilities. For instance, Cheshire West and Chester council, one of the local authorities in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, has let down parents, families and those with learning difficulties because of its poor management. It has come at the cost of adequate provision, particularly in school places, and therefore puts more people at risk of mental health problems because they are not getting the support they need in the community.
With the measures outlined in new clause 11, we could go a long way to ensuring accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to ensure that commitments are backed by funding for the good of those who need SEND support. I urge all those on the Committee to reflect on the value of the new clause. Crucially, it would also require the costed plan to be informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders. That is incredibly important, because we need to listen to the lived experience of those who are often extremely vulnerable to ensure that they receive the right support. In my intervention, I referred to some of the important groups in my constituency. Down Syndrome Cheshire and the Cheshire West and Chester SEND Accountability group are just two examples, but there are so many more. They are clear that they value being listened to, so that they can inform the process.
The new clause would ensure a costed plan, where commitments are not just words, but backed by funding. Crucially, it would mandate a formal consultation process to inform the plan, incorporating the view of a broad range of stakeholders, including those with lived experience such as those I mentioned in my constituency. There are individuals, carers, healthcare providers and advocacy groups whose voices all matter. We need a plan that is costed so it can be delivered, and that, crucially, reflects the needs and rights of those most affected. I fully support the new clause.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank hon. Members for this set of amendments, which draw attention to the important matter of implementation and community support for people with a learning disability and autistic people. I heard this issue raised many times on Second Reading.
I will begin with amendment 20. I am grateful that this important issue has been raised. Although he has not been appointed to the Committee, I know that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has spoken powerfully and movingly about the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Declan Morrison, his constituent, and the need to ensure effective and timely community-based support.
Proposed new section 125E of the Mental Health Act, provided within the Bill, already requires integrated care boards and local authorities to seek to ensure that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be met without detaining them. That should be driven by the specific needs of the local population, informed by the dynamic support register. That requirement already covers any relevant needs for crisis accommodation. We expect, and will set out in statutory guidance on dynamic support registers, that they will cover any relevant needs for crisis accommodation.
In contrast, the amendment seeks to place a prescriptive legal requirement to ensure provision of a specific service in all circumstances, irrespective of what people in the area actually need. That would have the unintended effect of restricting integrated care boards in designing provision and allocating resources in the most effective way to meet people’s needs.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the importance of the annual ministerial statement. Does he envisage that the statement will also give an update on the extent of community provision available and the execution of the transition of people with learning disabilities and autism from institutional settings to community settings closer to home? Is that within scope of the statement?
Stephen Kinnock
I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. The written ministerial statement will be an update on the work done over the preceding 12 months, but it absolutely will also be a forward plan, so it will set out the next actions that the Government will take, what the broader, long-term change delivery process will be, the institutions that will need to change and how they will change.
A number of colleagues have also asked the question, “What does good look like?” In many ways, it is absolutely right that we, as a Government, are being held to account on the content of the Bill, but there will be a really important accountability moment 12 months after it gets Royal Assent, which will be that written ministerial statement. I fully expect every colleague in this room to read that in great detail and hold the Government to account, both on what has been achieved over the preceding 12 months and, importantly, on what the forward plan looks like.
I think that covers most of what I wanted to say, although one additional point I would make is that the amendments could have the unintended consequence of requiring Government and local areas to set out unfunded or speculative plans ahead of any funding settlements, which would affect their credibility. It is more effective to set out plans when they are ready, when we have a clear line of sight on funding and deliverability.
We also need time to engage with expert stakeholders to inform implementation planning. We know that sufficient community services cannot be achieved without wider system reforms beyond health, and details contained in any plan must also consider the context of the 10-year health plan and the independent commission into adult social care, chaired by Baroness Casey. For that reason, I thank hon. Members for their contributions and invite them to withdraw amendment 20 and not to press amendments 24, 10, 22, 21 and new clause 11.
Dr Chambers
I thank everyone for all their insights into our amendments; they were very useful and constructive. I will address a couple of them briefly.
First, I thank the hon. Member for Ashford; we totally agree that we want to be moving mental health care—any care, actually, but mental health care specifically—back into the community and have more community care. We are not advocating for more hospital care. There is a specific point to amendment 20: my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, who is in the Public Gallery, had a tragic case of a constituent, which resulted from there not being enough available safe places for someone in crisis to be cared for.
A lot of our amendments have rightly been criticised for possibly being outside the scope of the Bill, because this Bill is for when people are in a mental health crisis, and a lot of our amendments are about how we can improve community care. To me, amendment 20 appears to be very in scope, because it addresses a failure of someone who was admitted for mental health care.
I thought that the insightful comments on most of our amendments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, given his legal and medical background, were very useful, and we will take those on board. The only one that I would disagree with, and I think he might feel the same, is on amendment 20 specifically. His main criticisms of that were that it might result in variability across the nation, that there are currently staff shortages and that there could be implementation delays. I do not see any of those three reasons to be strong enough to not want to maintain crisis accommodation.
I thank the Minister for his comments and his serious consideration of all our amendments. We will press amendment 20 to a vote, but will not press any of our other amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Zöe Franklin
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Training standards
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about training standards for responsible bodies and individuals working with people with autism or a learning disability in—
(a) mental health hospitals;
(b) places of safety designated under sections 135 or 136 of this Act;
(c) crisis accommodation; and
(d) such other settings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) specify minimum training requirements;
(b) require training to be co-produced with people with autism or learning disability and their families or carers;
(c) require regular refresher training; and
(d) include training on de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the standards set out in regulations under subsection (1).
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with people with autism or learning disabilities in mental health settings and require that training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families.
Amendment 25 was, again, tabled by my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. It would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with people with autism or learning disabilities in mental health settings, and would require that the training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families.
I suggest to all colleagues on the Committee, particularly those who heard my hon. Friend’s passionate speech on Second Reading, that we need to reflect and learn from the tragic story of his constituent Declan, in which insufficient training sadly contributed to Declan’s death. Autistic people in hospitals risk being subject to unnecessary restraint, over-medication and solitary confinement. That raises real concerns about whether there is sufficient training available to staff working with them. I acknowledge that enormous numbers of incredible professionals work with individuals who are in crisis, but when such tragedies happen, we need to reflect on whether training is sufficient.
Across mental health hospitals, places of safety and crisis accommodation, training is crucial to ensuring good outcomes for those in crisis. Some 92% of people with learning disabilities or autism in hospitals are detained under the Mental Health Act, yet many staff lack specialist understanding. Research shows that training is most effective when it is developed with people with lived experience.
The amendment would ensure that all staff working with autistic people and people with learning disabilities receive specialist training. It would require co-production with families and people with lived experience, with which Conservative colleagues have already said that they agree. That would include mandatory training in de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint; create consistent national standards, rather than the unfortunate postcode lottery; and address fundamental staff knowledge gaps that contribute to inappropriate treatment. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, which would enable us to ensure that those providing crucial mental health support to those in crisis have the appropriate training to prevent tragedies like the loss of Declan.
Jen Craft
I rise to share a few brief reflections. I appreciate that the intent behind amendment 25 is to make sure that the relevant training is in place. I assume that the hon. Member for Guildford has in mind something similar to the Oliver McGowan training provided across hospital trusts, which mandates that all healthcare providers spend a certain amount of time training with someone who has lived experience of autism and of learning disabilities, in order to make sure that the very different ways in which people with autism or learning disabilities might present do not overshadow what they are attending hospital to demonstrate. Particularly for mental health, we all know that diagnostic overshadowing can be fairly significant. In a locked setting, someone with a learning disability or autism may be unable to demonstrate behaviours that show they are improving or getting better, which can undermine the care they receive.
I would just question whether primary legislation is the best vehicle by which to provide for this. We have spoken at length about how the NHS workforce plan and the 10-year plan are coming forward. I wonder whether this would be better placed within that wider framework. Training could be taken forward either as part of continual professional development, or for medical professionals at the start of their career.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
On the point about training in the round for NHS staff, or any staff dealing with someone in crisis, might it be about taking a more contextual safeguarding approach that relates to not just the one setting? I agree with the point about looking at the 10-year plan, and making sure that mental health training is provided for all staff, because we know that people can present in very different ways, in many different contexts across the health system.
Jen Craft
I think there is a concern about having a prescriptive mandate in primary legislation, rather than using a vehicle that could implement real change. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure that those working in a mental health environment have sufficient training on learning disabilities and autism. We need to make sure that those with a specialism in learning disabilities and/or autism are present and people have access to them, so that things like diagnostic overshadowing do not continue to occur.
Sojan Joseph
I rise briefly to speak about training in our health settings. There is, in fact, too much mandatory training in NHS and care settings; the issue is that we are not complying with it. We also heavily rely on agency staff, whose training often nobody monitors. It is not that we are short of training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned, the Oliver McGowan training was rolled out across the NHS.
Gregory Stafford
I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My understanding of the amendment, for which I have a lot of sympathy, is that the mandatory training will be around appropriate care in the settings listed. I think he is talking about manual handling or data protection stuff. As someone who worked in the NHS for seven years, I entirely agree that there is a lot of “mandatory training” that could be scrapped to make the NHS much more efficient. The amendment is specifically about ensuring that there is appropriate training for those who are working in the settings listed. I hope that he is not saying that he does not think that there should be training for mental health professionals. I am sure he is not saying that, but that is how it is coming across.
Sojan Joseph
Not at all. I am not claiming that there should not be training for people who work in any settings; I am saying that more and more training has been added every time we learn something and yet compliance with the training requirement is not being monitored. That is the point I am making—not that we do not need the training.
I support training, because appropriate training is necessary, but we also need to ensure that the people who work in those settings are compliant with the training. That is the larger point I am making. This is not about the amount of training we might want to add to this legislation; we need to ensure that existing training is completed by the staff working in those areas.
Stephen Kinnock
The Health and Social Care Act 2008, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022, already requires that all CQC-registered health and adult social care providers ensure that their staff receive specific training, appropriate to their role, on learning disability and autism. The associated code of practice has been consulted on and is expected to be published and laid before Parliament soon.
The code sets out four standards that outline minimum training requirements, including expectations of training content at different levels; that training is co-produced and co-delivered alongside people with a learning disability and autistic people—that addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock about co-production and things not being done in an ivory tower; and that staff complete training at least every three years. To set out separate standards in secondary legislation, as the amendment asks, would cut across that existing legal requirement and the forthcoming code. Inadvertently, that could lead to confusion. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Guildford enough to persuade her to withdraw the amendment.
Zöe Franklin
Having had a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, I can say that we will withdraw the amendment. However, we hope that the Minister will ensure that the provisions addressing the need for training in such situations will come soon, and with a timeline, so that all members of the Committee understand when we will see the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Evans
It is a shame that the hon. Member for Shipley is not in her place to hear me speak to the rest of the clause 4, having considered the amendments to it first—[Interruption.] Oh, she is here just in time. I am grateful to the Government and the Chair, as the clause stand part debate allows things to be more structured.
I want to discuss proposed new part 8A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which will introduce welcome changes to provisions specific to people in England with autism or learning disabilities who are subject to detention under the Act. At the outset, let me say that the Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that people with autism or learning disabilities require a tailored and rights-based approach within our health system. We know—the evidence points clearly to the fact—that such individuals have been inappropriately detained in institutional settings, often for years, without the care and support that they truly need. The creation of a statutory care, education and treatment review in legislation was a step in the right direction. It therefore makes sense in this part of our proceedings to discuss such reviews.
The background is really important to understanding what the measure will do. Care, education and treatment reviews were introduced in 2015 as part of the Transforming Care programme, a joint initiative between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care under the last Government. The TCP was launched in response to the Winterbourne View scandal, which we have heard mentioned a few times, where serious abuses of people with learning disabilities and autism in private hospitals were exposed.
The purpose of CETRs in the Transforming Care programme was to ensure multi-agency oversight of care plans for people with learning disabilities and/or autism, particularly those with complex needs detained in in-patient or secure settings. They were there to promote person-centred care by involving patients, families and a broad range of professionals; to identify barriers to discharge and support safe, timely moves to community or less restrictive settings; and to improve care quality and reduce inappropriate long-term in-patient stays.
The implementation timetable started in 2015 with CETRs introduced as a mandatory part of the TCP, initially focusing on children and adults with learning disabilities and/or autism in in-patient settings. In 2017 to 2019, CETRs were expanded and refined, with NHS England producing guidance and a framework for conducting reviews consistently. Ongoing, CETRs are now embedded across the health and social care systems, extending beyond learning disabilities to other groups with complex mental health needs, including secure mental health services.
CETRs are multidisciplinary independent reviews designed to improve the care and treatment of people with complex mental health needs, particularly those detained in secure hospitals or secure settings, such as children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or complex mental health needs, or in other in-patient settings where there are concerns about the appropriateness of their care, treatment or placement. The purpose is to ensure that the care, education and treatment plans are appropriate, person-centred and holistic; to identify and address any barriers to overcoming recovery and discharge; to promote co-ordinated working between health, social care, education and other relevant services; and to support the least restrictive care principle, one that we have now enshrined in the Bill—helping people to move to less restrictive settings where possible.
There are, however, some complications. The number of CETRs has increased over recent years, especially with the growing recognition of the need for better oversight of complex needs. Several hundred CETRs take place annually across England and Wales, primarily within secure and specialist mental health services. Exact numbers are quite difficult to pin down and vary by service user populations, health trusts, NHS England monitoring and the reporting of the activity.
What is a CETR made up of? That is really important. A typical CETR involves a multidisciplinary panel including independent clinical reviewers such as a senior psychiatrist or clinician not involved in direct care; representatives from social care services; educational specialists, especially for children and young people; advocates or independent mental health advocates; the patient or service users themselves, where possible, to ensure their voice is central; family members or carers where appropriate and with consent; and commissioners and other relevant professionals involved in the person’s care pathway.
Under the review process, the panel examines the individual care, the treatment, the education and progress. It assesses whether the current placement and treatment plan are meeting the person’s needs and whether there is scope to support transition to less restrictive or more appropriate settings. Recommendations may be made on changes to care, treatment plans, discharge or support arrangements.
CETRs are a very valuable safeguard. They bring together the independent clinicians, the social care professionals, the educators, the advocates and, crucially, the patients and their families to review the care and treatment being provided. The aim is to ensure that the treatment is person-centred, appropriate and geared towards recovery, while also exploring opportunities to move people to less restrictive environments when safe to do so. That said, while CETRs are increasingly used, questions remain about their consistency, effectiveness and impacts on outcomes. On page 12 of the explanatory notes, paragraph 46 states that
“recommendations are not always being acted upon”,
which is contributing to
“the perpetuated detention of people with a learning disability and autistic people, often without therapeutic benefit.”
That is really significant. To that end, how many CETRs are conducted annually and what are the mechanics in place to ensure that the reviews lead to meaningful change in care, rather than becoming a procedural exercise? I must admit that I struggled to find that information. If I, as someone looking into it, am struggling, there is a concern about how wide that information and data is.
Gregory Stafford
Given that we have discussed the proposed new sections in depth, I do not intend to dilate upon this clause for long. Suffice it to say that the Opposition, notwithstanding the questions asked by the shadow Minister, support the clause, which is essential to ensure the safeguards and progress that we are trying to achieve through the Bill.
Clearly, the clause is prevention-focused and helps avoid unnecessary and traumatic hospital admissions. It leads to better planning because it supports tracked admission of services tailored to individual needs. It also has an element of legal accountability, given that it makes it a legal duty for ICBs to monitor and support at-risk individuals. It is also data driven because it encourages the use of real-time data to inform care decisions.
That being said, a number of the concerns that we raised during debate on the amendments apply to the clause itself. In the Minister’s summing up, can he touch once again on the privacy concerns, as well as the resource demands and the risk of stigma? By that, I mean that being placed on a register could be seen as labelling or pathologising. How do we ensure that the register does what it is supposed to without that risk? Can he also touch on some of the vague criteria and definitional phrases, such as “at risk”, and how they might potentially lead to inconsistent application?
Stephen Kinnock
I am conscious that we will be voting imminently, so I will try to rattle through. Going back to my phrase “the red thread”, the thread running through all the shadow Minister’s questions is delivery. The proof of the pudding in all legislation is whether we convert it into action in a way that best delivers for the interests of the British people, and in a way that absorbs the risks, builds resilience in the system and ensures that we are constantly monitoring, evaluating, reviewing and learning from what is happening on the ground and, through a constant process, improving delivery.
The shadow Minister asks some very good questions, but the problem is that so many will relate to the work that we need to do at pace as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is a sequential process; we first need the legislation and the comprehensive spending review, so that we know our funding package. We then need to start work consulting on the code of practice, getting that feedback and shaping a plan that defines what good community services look like, because we all know that we are a million miles from having good community services at the current time. We are in a state of crisis and the system is on its knees; we are very conscious of all those facts. There is an immense urgency with all this.
The shadow Minister asked about evaluating and updating pathways and CETRs, duty to respond, the information collected, managing the risks, preventing paternalism and ensuring that people do not get labelled. All those things will have to be set out and explained in the project plan. That is something we will all be working very hard on as soon as the Bill gets Royal Assent.
One of the shadow Minister’s factual questions was on how many CETRs have been issued. I cannot give him that number, but I can tell him that, as set out in the impact assessment, 86% of in-patients received a CETR in the last year. If my answer that this is about delivery does not satisfy him and he thinks there are issues that relate directly to the Bill rather than to the implementation plan, I am happy to write to him on that.
Dr Evans
I appreciate what the Minister is saying. The blue threat, or blue and yellow thread, running through the debate is the question of how much needs to be in the primary legislation. The argument from the Conservative side has been that, while some of the Lib Dem amendments are too restrictive, the danger is that the freedom and flexibility at the Government’s end is too loose. I trust the Minister implicitly—but, having seen Ministers on our side come and go, there could be a change within Government or a change of colour of Government, and no Government are bound by the one that went before.
I am trying to get the balance right by asking questions around procedure to assess whether some of these things should be in the legislation. I agree that there has to be a balance. That is why the Opposition chose to say 18 months, as opposed to four months; it was to have accountability and safeguards in place and to urge good delivery, but not to curtail the ICBs or clinicians—the people delivering stuff—and make them simply check boxes.
I appreciate the Minister’s offer to write to me. I would be grateful for that data, because where we find it will be important in future debates and in his future written or oral statements. I hope he understands that these probes are to make sure that we get the balance right between primary legislation, what is going in the code of practice and what is well intentioned, but could be left to blow in the wind.
Stephen Kinnock
That is a valid question, and one that has probably been asked in pretty much every Bill Committee that has ever taken place. It is always a challenge to get the balance right, having the right level of steer to the system in primary legislation without tying the hands of the system. Everything is constantly evolving, particularly in the age of technology in which we live, so it would be foolish to tie our hands too tightly given the changing nature of the landscape we are working in.
My answer to the question—I say this personally and from the point of view of the Government—is that we are satisfied that we have the balance more or less right. That is in the eye of the beholder, and not everybody will agree, but we feel that clause 4 gets that balance right, and sends clear signals to the system through primary legislation. The proof of the pudding will then be in the eating, and that is for the code of practice, the regulations and the programme planning. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Grounds for detention
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
“(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment), serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person; and”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 53, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
“(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for medical treatment, serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for medical treatment, serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,”
This amendment, along with Amendment 52, would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others.
New clause 24—Application in respect of patient already on hospital grounds—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5(1) (Application in respect of a patient already in hospital), after ‘or,’ insert ‘that the patient has attended a hospital or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient or,’”
This new clause would allow people who have attended or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
All the amendments in this group have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Amendments 52 and 53 deal with grounds for detention and treatment—specifically, with how those grounds differ depending on whether a patient has the capacity or competence to consent.
At the heart of both amendments is the simple but vital proposition that capacity matters, not only ethically, but legally. The ability of an individual to make decisions about their own care must shape the basis on which the state may act against their will.
The revised wording introduces an important distinction between the two scenarios, where a patient lacks capacity and where they retain it. In the first case, where a patient cannot consent because they are unable to understand or weigh up the relevant information, then serious harm either to the patient or to others may justify detention or compulsory treatment. However, in the second case, where capacity is intact, the threshold for overriding a person’s autonomy is rightly higher. In such circumstances, the justification for intervention must rest solely on the risk of serious harm to other people.
This is more than legal tidiness; it is a matter of fundamental rights. The law should not permit the detention or forced treatment of a capacitated individual on the basis of a paternalistic judgment about their own safety—that is not a liberal mental health framework, but an arbitrary power. These amendments achieve something critical: they preserve the protective duty of the state, particularly to those who cannot protect themselves, but they do so without blurring the line between necessary intervention and justified intrusion. They are grounded in legal precedent, echoing the principles found in common law, the Mental Capacity Act and article 5 of the European convention on human rights. They introduce clarity where ambiguity once stood, and they ensure that the Bill reflects both compassion and constitutional restraint. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. We are now expecting three Divisions. I will therefore suspend the Committee for twenty-five minutes, until 5.30 pm—[Interruption.] Four Divisions? We have only been informed about three. [Interruption.] Yes—we would like you all back at 5.40 pm.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could we have some clarity on what adjourning the Committee right now would mean? Several members of the Committee have not returned from the Division, and it would be good to know the implications if we adjourn now.
Aphra Brandreth
The Conservative members of the Committee all came back at 5.40 pm, when we were asked to return.
Stephen Kinnock
My understanding was that we would all come back after the final vote, which was on Third Reading.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
I am the only one who can move the Adjournment.
Gregory Stafford
That is not true. Any member of the Committee can move the Adjournment.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. I called for a Division on the Adjournment before several members of the Committee who are now in the room came back. What is your ruling on whether members who were not here when the Division was called will be allowed to vote?
Chris Bloore
With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, I clearly asked my question before the Question was put. We therefore have not divided yet.
The Chair
You wanted to know what adjourning now would mean for the progress of the Bill, and it would mean that we have to restart where we finished, so Thursday could be a longer day.
Dr Evans
Further to that point of order, Ms Furniss. To follow up on what the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry North West, said, when a vote was called—although I appreciate that it was not carried on the voices—a number of members of the Committee who have since returned were not present.
Ms Furniss, could you speak to the Clerk to clarify at what point the Committee divided? There was a very clear point at which the Adjournment was moved. I appreciate it is your call whether the Question was carried on the voices, but you said that it seemed to have been carried, which implies that the Committee should now adjourn. I appreciate that there are some difficulties.
Taiwo Owatemi
Members have 15 minutes to get back when a Division is called in the House. The 15 minutes had not elapsed when the Adjournment was moved. How can the vote be allowed to stand when the rules say that members of the Committee have 15 minutes to get back?
Gregory Stafford
Ms Furniss, your ruling, as I am sure Hansard will show, is that we were required to come back at 20 minutes to 6. Opposition members of the Committee were back at 20 minutes to 6, and few others were here. You did not suspend the Committee again when the House divided on Third Reading because you were not here, and therefore the 15-minute rule cannot apply.
Taiwo Owatemi
When the previous vote was called, I made it very clear to the Committee that we had three votes plus a vote on Third Reading.
Gregory Stafford
The Chair said that we must be back here at 20 minutes to 6, and that the Committee would be suspended until that point. We have not been suspended since then.
The Chair
Arguing about whether we were here or not is not moving us on, is it? We need to know what we are going to do now, so let us stop there. I think the Government Whip will agree that if we adjourn the debate now, the business will resume on Thursday. The Committee has another eight sittings after that, so you should have time to catch up. That is what it would mean.
Question put, That the debate be now adjourned.
The Chair
I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst to continue speaking to amendment 52 and the other amendments in that group.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It seems a lifetime ago since I was last on my feet. I am sure the Minister was waiting in anticipation for the crescendo of my speech. He heard my observations on amendments 52 and 53, and I know he will be mindful of ensuring that the balance between intervention and detention is held in equilibrium. I would be grateful if he addressed the points I raised before the interlude in his response.
New clause 24 would amend section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to clarify that a formal application for detention can be made not only for a patient already admitted to hospital, but for individuals who have attended or been brought to a hospital seeking help or admission. It would therefore expand the legal basis for initiating detention procedures under the Act.
The new clause makes an important distinction. While the Act currently allows for the detention of an individual who is already an in-patient, there is ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds—who have attended A&E, for example—but have not yet been formally admitted as a patient. In those cases, the Act fails to capture people who arrive voluntarily or are brought to such an institution during a crisis.
New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing an application for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment. A number of significant benefits would arise from the new clause. It would provide firm legal clarity; remove any ambiguity about when detention procedures can begin; allow timely intervention, enabling quicker responses for an individual in crisis who is already at hospital but has not been admitted; reduce the risk of harm by allowing earlier application of safeguards; and align the legal framework with the reality of hospital procedures. The distinction between those who are in attendance at a hospital and those who have been admitted in a state of crisis is a false one.
Dr Evans
Like me, my hon. Friend has served as a clinician on the frontline. As this point is sometimes lost, can he explain the practicalities of what turning up at a hospital versus actually being admitted means? They are two distinct things. Can he walk us through what the process entails?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend is right. An individual can attend an emergency department to be assessed and be seen by a doctor before a decision is made on whether that patient should be admitted to that hospital, transferred to a tertiary centre or discharged back into the community. New clause 24 seeks to provide clarity and certainty for practitioners on that grey area and, crucially, it seeks to provide a safeguard for patients who have yet to be formally admitted to an institution—a hospital, community placement or wherever—but need a crucial intervention.
Dr Evans
Amendment 52 would amend clause 5 to introduce an important distinction in the grounds for detention under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, namely on whether a person has the mental capacity or competence to consent to admission. This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raises questions that go to the heart of how we balance liberty and protection, autonomy and risk in our mental health system.
Under the current Mental Health Act, and indeed under the Bill as drafted, an individual can be detained for assessment if they are experiencing a mental disorder and if serious harm could be caused to themselves or others unless they are detained. There is no distinction based on whether they have the capacity to consent to care. In other words, a person who has full understanding and decision-making ability may still be detained against their will to protect them from themselves.
The amendment proposes a change to that approach, so that if someone lacks the capacity to make a decision about admission and treatment, the current protection should apply—they can be detained if they are at risk of harming themselves or others. But if someone has capacity, understands what is happening and what the risks are, and still refuses care, they should be detained only if they pose a risk to others and not just to themselves.
I will give a brief example to try to bring that to life. Imagine a young adult, aged 22 and living with long-standing depression. They have attempted suicide in the past, but they now clearly and repeatedly say that they do not want to be admitted. They understand the risks, are coherent, consistent and judged by clinicians to have capacity. Under the Bill as it stands, that person could still technically be detained, but under this amendment they could not unless they pose a risk to someone else.
Why does this amendment have merit? There is much in it that is compelling. It puts autonomy at the centre of the mental health framework, which the Committee discussed and agreed on earlier. It aligns more closely with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which already allows people to make unwise decisions so long as they understand what they are doing. It also echoes the principles in the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which calls for supported decision making over substitute decision making. It could reduce unnecessary or overly paternalistic detentions, especially of people from marginalised groups who are already disproportionally affected by coercive care.
Gregory Stafford
I am interested in the points that my hon. Friend is raising. Could he give any examples of the situations he is talking about? It would help the Committee, and certainly help me, to understand the practical realities of what he is talking about.
Dr Evans
I will try to elucidate a little further. We know that some people have fluid capacity, such as those with dementia or depression. How do we ensure that people have safeguards for themselves and the wider community, while respecting their capacity and allowing them to be masters of their own destiny? The Bill literally says that we want to see individual autonomy, and by definition, there is always a balance to be struck. The Bill shifts more to the paternalistic side, which brings some challenges because it could create gaps in protections, as I will explain.
There are clinical situations in which a person in mental health crisis—for example, in the early stages of a manic episode or a severe personality disorder crisis—may present with superficial capacity but be at grave risk of harm. Are we confident that clinicians can assess capacity accurately in real time, in often pressured and emergency contexts? Might we inadvertently tie the hands of practitioners trying to prevent suicide or serious self-injury? If capacity becomes the gateway to protection, what support and guidance will be provided to ensure that it applies fairly, consistently and safely?
That is important when we talk about detention, because detaining people is one thing; the next thing is how we get them out. To understand that, it is worth focusing on the crucial interaction between the Bill and liberty protection safeguards. It is worth my briefly explaining to the Committee what LPS are, how they evolved and why they matter. Liberty protection safeguards are the new legal framework that replaces the old deprivation of liberty safeguards, or DoLS. DoLS were designed to protect people who lack capacity, but had become widely criticised as complex, slow and limited mainly to hospitals and care homes.
In response, the Conservative Government introduced LPS through the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019, to simplify the process and extend protections to community settings such as supported living and people’s own homes. Given that we are talking about Darzi’s shift, that is important. With that context, I turn to the key concerns before us today: how the Bill interacts with LPS, especially when individuals move from hospital detention to community care.
To illustrate why this matters, let us consider the case of Mrs A. She is a 55-year-old woman with bipolar disorder and mild dementia. She was detained under the Mental Health Act after a severe manic episode put her at risk. While in hospital, the Act governed her detention and treatment. After several months, Mrs A stabilises enough to be discharged, but because of her dementia, she lacks the capacity to consent to her care arrangements in the community. She requires supported living, with 24/7 care, which means that she will continue to be deprived of her liberty, but now in the community. Because she is no longer detained under the Mental Health Act upon discharge, the liberty protection safeguards must authorise the deprivation of liberty in the community.
This requires careful consideration. An LPS assessment and best intention decisions are required, and formal authorisation must be in place before she leaves hospital. This transition point is critical, because without clear protocols, Mrs A could find herself deprived of liberty without lawful authorisation—a breach of her human rights. Information sharing between hospital staff, community providers and local authorities may be delayed or incomplete. There may be confusion among professionals about who is responsible for co-ordinating the handover. Training gaps might lead to the inconsistent application of safeguards.
The Bill reforms detention in hospitals, but there is some opacity regarding how the handover to LPS in the community will be managed. Will the Bill ensure a seamless transition, with no gaps in safeguards? If it does not, then how will this be provided? Will there be statutory duties to mandate information sharing and co-ordinate reassessments? How will professionals across health and social care be trained to navigate both systems effectively?
The Bill rightly aims to reduce inappropriate detentions and enhance patient autonomy in hospital, but protections under LPS in the community must be equally robust to maintain dignity and rights post discharge. How will the Government guarantee parity of safeguards across settings? The Bill also seeks to address disproportionate detention rates among ethnic minorities. We must be equally vigilant that the reforms and the wider LPS regime do not perpetuate inequalities once individuals leave hospital. We therefore need to ask the questions: what monitoring is done and what safeguards will be in place?
On detention, I gently ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plan to manage the vital interface between the Mental Health Act and LPS, even as the Bill stands, to embed clear statutory duties, guidance and accountability to protect all individuals like Mrs A throughout her care journey.
What is the Government’s view on distinguishing between those with and without capacity in the context of detention for self-harm risk? Has the Department assessed the clinical and operational implications of requiring real-time capacity judgments before detaining someone at risk to themselves? Will the Government consider a limited override provision in extreme cases where the risk is immediate, catastrophic and the capacity assessment is finely balanced? We will see more of these kinds of cases as we go forward, with more and more people living with the likes of dementia or acquired brain injuries.
If the Government do not support the amendment as drafted, might they consider refining the code of practice to provide clear guidance on how capacity, autonomy and right to self are waived? The amendment presents a thoughtful and principled intervention. It is not perfect in my eyes, but it challenges us, rightly, to consider whether our mental health laws strike the right balance between protection and personal freedom.
Amendment 53, like its partner on section 2, reflects a growing consensus that the law should better respect the autonomy of people with mental health conditions, especially when they have the capacity to make informed decisions. In introducing a necessary distinction, if someone can truly understand the consequences of refusing treatment and they pose no risk to others, should the state override their decision on their own behalf? The amendment would add a capacity-based distinction into section 3, mirroring the earlier amendment on section 2. Specifically, if a patient lacks capacity to consent to a medical treatment, they may be detained if there is risk of serious harm to themselves or others. If a person has capacity, they may be detained only if there is risk to others. In short, if a person is mentally unwell but understands the consequences of refusing treatment in this case and only poses a risk to themselves, they would not be eligible for detention under this amendment.
Imagine a woman with anorexia nervosa who is dangerously underweight, has a good understanding of her condition and the risk, and refuses in-patient treatment. Under the Bill as it stands she can be detained, but under the amendment if she is judged to have capacity and only poses a risk to herself, she could not be detained under section 3. Therefore, there are huge and far-reaching consequences to the amendment. The wider science is moving towards capacity, but it needs to answer some of these questions. Some are even being grappled with now—take the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This truly cuts to the heart of humanity and I am sure there are varying views not only across the Committee, but across society. Similar questions will arise when it comes to capacity.
To that end, the question posed is not simple. In some cases, such as severe anorexia or chronic suicidal tendencies, capacity may be technically present but clinically contested. The stakes could not be higher. The amendment challenges us, and therefore the Government—and rightly so—to ask: are we doing enough to balance liberty and care? Do we have the right clinical tools, legal thresholds and ethical safeguards in place?
New clause 24 is on a different but related subject. This Back-Bench amendment relates to the application for admission in respect of patients who are already on hospital grounds but have not yet been formally admitted. This is really important, because it comes down to the ability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, when it comes to the mechanism this is the day-to-day reality. Someone, just because they turn up in A&E, is not under the care of A&E per se until they are admitted. That is when the clinicians will take control. If they just give their name, at what point do we have that grey area? That is the matter of contention in day-to-day working.
Currently, under section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act, applications for detention or admission can be made only in relation to patients who are already admitted to hospital—that is the key part. This leaves a grey area for people who come to hospital voluntarily, perhaps by walking into A&E and seeking help or being brought by an ambulance or the police, but have not yet been formally admitted. The amendment would explicitly allow applications for admission to be made as soon as someone attends or is brought into hospital to seek help, even before formal admission.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. Clearly, both my hon. Friends have significant clinical experience, and I bow in many ways to their expertise. However, the amendments cause me some concerns.
Amendments 52 and 53
“would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others.”
Clearly, both amendments would introduce a capacity-based distinction in the grounds for detaining a person for medical treatment under the Mental Health Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned. That would ensure that, for patients who lack capacity or competence, detention is justified if serious harm may be caused to themselves or others unless they receive that treatment. For patients who have capacity or competence, detention is justified only if serious harm may be caused to others unless they received that treatment.
The amendments build on the principle of autonomous individuals, which we have talked about and which, as my hon. Friend said, is in the Bill. People should not be detained solely for their own protection if they are capable of making informed decisions about their care. As my hon. Friend said, that aligns with the Mental Capacity Act and broader human rights principles, aiming to ensure that detention is used proportionately and, most importantly, ethically.
Where the two amendments improve the current legislation is around the strengthening of patient autonomy by limiting the detention of capable individuals to cases where others are at risk. The amendments align the Bill with the human rights principles and the Mental Capacity Act, and clarify a number of legal thresholds for detention, reducing ambiguity in clinical decision making. That will help clinicians to make more sensible and consistent judgments when it comes to who should or should not be detained. Obviously, the amendments promote a proportionality element in the use of coercive powers, and support the person-centred care that we want.
However, I am concerned that the amendments may increase complexity when assessing capacity in applying the correct legal tests. It will absolutely require training and guidance. Government Members have been concerned about mandatory training, and I make no apologies for hoping there would be significant training on this for clinicians when acting in this role, to ensure consistent application of these services. While I accept that the provisions clarify the legal thresholds, I think there is a potential for legal challenges if the distinction is misapplied or misunderstood, hence the need to return to my point about having the correct training. I hope the Minister is able to address some of those concerns, rather than just dismissing the amendments outright.
New clause 24 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and West Shirley—
Gregory Stafford
I am doing my best—I will get it right by week three, I promise.
New clause 24 would allow people who have attended or been brought to hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act. As other Members have mentioned, section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act allows for the detention of individuals who are already in-patients. However, there has been ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds but not yet formally admitted; for example, those who arrive voluntarily or are being brought in during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing applications for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment, according to my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Runnymede and Weybridge.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friends on the benefits of the new clause, and I accept some of them. However, I have some concerns about deterring people from turning up to a hospital setting, either for some other treatment or to visit friends or relations. I am worried that people would be concerned that they would be forcibly sectioned or detained without their consent by just turning up. There is a real risk of overreach in new clause 24. If we go back to the point about autonomy, people need to have assurance about when and where they will potentially be detained when they seek voluntary help.
The line between voluntary attendance and involuntary detention is the nub of the new clause. While I accept the arguments that have been made by my two hon. Friends, I am not thus far convinced that the balance in the clause is correct, but I am hopeful that the Minister can give some clarity.
Anna Dixon
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I have worked with him on some aspects of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; he brings great expertise as a psychiatrist, and an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act that is perhaps greater than mine and that of some Members of the Opposition. However, even though I respect the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, does the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon recognise that we need to ensure compatibility between the Mental Capacity Act and the Bill before us? I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the legal checks have been done and that the proposals before us are compatible. Given that pre-legislative scrutiny was carried out under the previous Government, I am sure that process fully got to the bottom of these issues, and I therefore hope that we can move on.
Gregory Stafford
Just in case my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not following this Bill in Hansard, I will pass on the hon. Lady’s compliments to him. Like her, I have great respect for him; I am not trying to denigrate his great work on the amendments and the new clause. All I am suggesting is that, from a layperson’s perspective, there are some elements that need tightening up, if not changing altogether. I take the hon. Lady’s point about pre-legislative scrutiny, but obviously these amendments and the new clause were not part of that because they have only just been tabled. I therefore think it is entirely appropriate to be debating them now.
Dr Evans
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and looked into this issue a bit further. Psychiatry is already looking towards future capacity and trying to bring the two pieces of legislation together. I believe that Scotland has already moved in that direction. We are therefore into the cycle of chasing legislation for something behind us. I appreciate the concerns, but that is why the Government need to be alive to these situations. At the end of the day, the nub of the issue is patients getting caught up between capacity and safety under the Mental Health Act. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gregory Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily helpful intervention. I was not aware of the changes, and I certainly had not heard of fusion before, or about what is going on in Scotland. Of course, if the new clause had already been enacted in another part of the United Kingdom in some form, I would be much more comfortable with it. But, as I said in relation amendments 52 and 53, if the new clause is to pass in its current form in this Bill or in some future form in another Bill, there has to be a focus on proper training and guidance. Because there is potentially such a legal quagmire, we must ensure that people understand the legal framework within which they can do this.
Stephen Kinnock
Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley for moving the amendments and the new clause on behalf of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
I will first speak to amendments 52 and 53. The new detention criteria explicitly require decision makers to consider the risk of serious harm and the likelihood of harms occurring in order to justify detention. It is right that clinicians have the power to intervene when a patient is at risk of seriously harming themselves, both when they do and when do not have mental capacity.
If we were to accept the amendments and the new clause, we think that patients would be left without the protections that the Mental Health Act provides. For example, let us consider a patient with a serious eating disorder who is assessed as having capacity but is refusing treatment. If there were no longer an option to detain that patient under the Mental Health Act, that could leave clinicians and families without a route for treatment, potentially leading to tragic results.
The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee highlighted concerns about cases where the concept of capacity had been used to justify denying individuals care that they had sought voluntarily, particularly in relation to very ill and potentially suicidal patients. That goes against the spirit of the Mental Health Act and could fall short of professional standards.
Patient choice is, of course, critical, and the changes that we are making recognise that when patients have a say in their treatment, they are more likely to engage. We also think that it is right that when those decisions put people at risk of serious harm, including risk to their own life, there is a duty to intervene.
We recognise that detaining and treating patients with capacity without their consent is a very serious step to take. However, we think that it is right that we intervene when someone is a risk to themselves, not just to other people. That is in line with the Government’s commitment to delivering a cross-sector suicide prevention strategy for England. We should deprive somebody of their liberty and detain them only as a last resort. The threshold of serious harm in the new criteria reflects the gravity of that decision.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the Minister for how seriously he is taking this issue, and I agree that there is not necessarily a consensus even within the Opposition. Having the debate is therefore really important. It may be useful to collect data on the number of incidents and where these handovers are. Would the Government commit to that? We would be better able to have this debate, and to decide how much of a problem this is and to work out what the solutions are. Again, I struggle to find data that indicates where this is an issue, but I have spoken to clinicians who I know and colleagues who I have worked with when I have seen it. It happens enough that I was aware of it as a bog-standard GP who has worked in A&E, but it is clearly not rampant and we are not seeing it every single day. Would the Government commit to collecting data on it? If so, in what format would it come?
Stephen Kinnock
I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify his question about data collection. Is he looking for clarity on the number of people who are judged to have mental capacity but who trigger the deprivation of liberty condition because they are seen to be either of severe risk of harm to themselves or to society?
Dr Evans
That would be a very useful piece of data, but I was in fact talking about new clause 24 and the grey area of hospital detentions. That data is probably easier to collect. I specifically ask the Minister to keep in mind the collection of data on those who turn up to A&E but end up having to be taken out of the hospital to be sectioned, for example. That is the nub of the issue and the practicality of what is going on. In a number of incidents, although the law is set in a way that is supposed to be helpful, the interface unfortunately becomes very difficult.
The Minister has rightly pointed out that there are different ways to deal with this. The new clause is one such potentially heavy-handed way of dealing with it. At the same time, it comes from the good place of trying to address what clinicians deal with in A&E day in, day out. However, we need some data and some teeth behind that to understand and appreciate how much of a problem it is and to then come up with a solution. I hope that clarifies my question.
Stephen Kinnock
That does clarify it. I will absolutely discuss that with officials. It is clear that we need a complete picture of the prevalence of people reporting to emergency departments and then having to be extracted from them and put into other facilities. That is an important point. We clearly need to think more about this issue and consult further. Obviously, understanding the data is a very important part of that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a nailed-on commitment to do that, but I give him a nailed-on commitment to discuss it with officials. It is possible that the data is already out there. We need to find that out.
We have heard concerns that there is a lack of clarity about what legal powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in emergency departments until they can be assessed. However, it is a complex issue that requires extreme care and caution. We have committed to continue to explore the issue. We will engage with stakeholders to understand how the current legal framework is applied, and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will provide further guidance on the existing legal framework, including the handover process from police to health, in the next revision of the code of practice. We are also taking steps to address current operational pressures. NHS operational and planning guidance for this year tasks local health systems to improve patient flow through mental health crisis pathways and to reduce waits of more than 12 hours in emergency departments.
Anna Dixon
Will the setting up of more health settings—places of healthcare and of safety—help to address the issue?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, I think that is right. We have a commitment to creating—either building or repurposing—facilities for more acute mental health settings. We have also created the 111 mental health line. We have a commitment to 8,500 more mental health specialists. We are committed to having a mental health-trained person in every school in the country.
I hope that all those wraparound measures will help in the overall role that we play in the community, and identify people with challenges in a way that will help to support them and, one hopes, avoid them getting to the acute stage. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to some of the wraparound measures that the Government are pushing forward.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley not to press amendments 52 and 53 and new clause 24 to a vote.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has addressed the issue with his usual thoughtfulness. I ask that he looks into sharing that data, particularly around new clause 24, but on the basis of the reassurances that he has provided, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. He made some important points in his contribution, including his reference to the Kicks programme. He also pointed out an event in his area where he was able to see the Premier League trophy; that is a fantastic tour involving lots of grassroots and other clubs. I was really pleased to visit one such club in Mr Speaker’s Chorley constituency, and I will take this opportunity to wish Mr Speaker a very happy birthday. I am sure that other Committee members will join me in putting that on the record.
We do not believe, however, that the change in amendment 137 is necessary. I will outline why and respond throughout my speech to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points. As drafted, the Bill gives flexibility to a club to detail what action it is taking to contribute
“to the economic and social well-being of the local community with which it is associated”.
This provision was introduced through a Government amendment made in the other place to allow the regulator to include clubs’ community contributions in its corporate governance code. The regulator will work with the industry to design the code to ensure that it is relevant to clubs, the challenges they face and the unique nature of the responsibilities associated with custodianship of a football club.
If a club details, in its statement, its work with or through its official charity, that would of course be accepted by the regulator. That is the opposite of what the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. He referred to scaling back charity work, but that is absolutely not what we will see as a result of the proposals.
Let me detail some of the specifics. If a club is donating to or funding bodies that are not its official charity, that is also a contribution to the community and could be included. We have tried to keep this as broad as possible. To share something from my constituency and town, Barnsley FC Community Trust is a great example of a charity that is closely connected to a club. The community trust held its conference on Monday, and I was pleased to send them a message. One purpose of that conference was to raise the charity’s profile across Barnsley. It helps between 10,000 and 15,000 people each year, who range in age from two to 100 years old. I will not detain the Committee by outlining the work that the trust does, but it ranges from education to health, social inclusion and sports participation, not just in and around the centre connected to Oakwell, but across the whole of Barnsley and my Barnsley South constituency.
Barnsley FC could use their work with the trust to show how they contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of their community, and I put on record that they very much do that in my area. But it is not just Barnsley FC that do such work; many clubs carry out great work in their communities, whether through their official charities or not. Portsmouth FC’s Pompey in the Community and the Sheffield Wednesday FC Community Programme are just two examples; I am sure that hon. Members across the Committee have examples from their communities. It is important to shine a light on those contributions to the local community, and that is why a club’s report on their corporate governance will be published online to allow public scrutiny, so that they can be held accountable for their actions, or inaction. We believe that this will encourage transparency and, as with the approach to corporate governance more widely, encourage greater action in this space.
Above all, that approach will allow flexibility for each club to comply in accordance with their resources and size in a way that is suited to the needs of their local community. Additionally, when the regulator publishes its corporate governance report on clubs, best practice can be shared with the industry. We therefore believe that the Bill, as drafted, sufficiently allows clubs to demonstrate the actions they contribute to their communities. I hope that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak again under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate you and the city of Hull on the Challenge cup victory at the weekend, which probably does not please Mr Speaker on his birthday, but such is sport.
Moving back to football, before the lunch break, I explained why the Opposition felt the need for amendment 137. It is a technical amendment that would make it very clear that the official charities and trusts of the clubs would count towards the corporate governance structure. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments and appreciate the feedback that she has given. However, we would still like to see the amendment made to provide clarity to clubs, so we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 131, in schedule 5, page 103, line 16, at end insert—
“Agents fees
11A (1) An agents fees condition is a condition requiring a club employing an agent to cap their fees.
(2) The agents fee cap will be set by Regulations subject to approval by both Houses.”
My amendment proposes that clubs regulated by the Government’s new regulator should be required to cap the fees paid to agents, because, as many fans know, an ever-increasing amount of money is leaving the football pyramid to agents. The level of the proposed cap would be set through regulations, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and determined following consultation with clubs and leagues.
Let me set out why we believe the measure is necessary—not as an attack on agents or their role in the game, but as a proportionate, reasonable step towards a more sustainable, transparent and responsible football ecosystem. If we are serious about football reform and safeguarding the long-term financial health of clubs up and down the pyramid, we must be prepared to tackle the excesses and distortions that have taken root in the sport.
Few are more obvious or pressing than the spiralling sums paid to agents. According to the Football Association, in the year from February 2024 to February 2025, Premier League clubs alone paid more than £409 million in agent fees and intermediaries. That is more than the total broadcast revenue of a number of Championship clubs in 2022-23; or more than double the commercial revenue of several clubs for that season; or almost three times the matchday revenue of a number of Championship clubs in the same season.
This is not wages or transfer fees, nor is it investment in the matchday experience for fans—it is money paid out purely for representation costs, often for work done on both sides of a deal. To put that into context, it is more than the entire annual income of many Championship clubs combined, and this is not just a Premier League problem. Although the sums are relatively smaller further down the pyramid, the pressures are arguably even more acute for clubs with less budget.
My amendment seeks to introduce a straightforward principle—that there should be a fair and proportionate limit on the fees that clubs can pay to agents, and that the limit should be set by regulations made by the Secretary of State subject to affirmative procedure. This would help to ensure full parliamentary oversight and allow future Governments to adjust the cap based on changing market conditions, evidence from the Government’s regulator and broader economic factors in football.
There is already a strong precedent for this kind of intervention. For example, FIFA’s agent regulations now attempt to impose limits on the commissions payable to clubs and players alike, but those rules remain subject to legal challenge and uneven enforcement across jurisdictions. In the absence of effective international enforcement, there is an opportunity for this to be included in the scope of the Government’s regulator as a core part of the financial sustainability of English football.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I have sympathy with what the amendment is trying to achieve, but can the shadow Minister reflect on what it could do to transfers coming into the country? An agent working with Ronaldo could sell him either to an English club, where the fees are capped, or to an Italian, French or Spanish club, where the fees are not capped. Is there a concern that this would limit good players coming into the country?
Mr French
I discussed that consideration with a number of people in the game before we tabled the amendment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the French, who already cap agents’ fees at 10%. With this amendment, we are not seeking to say what the level should be—that should be determined by the game in consultation—but we are looking for the game to help to set the cap at a level that does not have the impact that he talks about. But it is a fair challenge.
We must remember that the Bill is fundamentally about sustainability. Financial discipline is not just a boardroom concern, but a matter of public trust. Football clubs are more than private enterprises, as we have discussed. They are community institutions. They are the social glue in towns such as Bury, Scunthorpe and Southend, all of which have suffered financial distress in recent years. The idea that hundreds of millions of pounds can leave the game each year in opaque payments to third-party agents while clubs struggle to pay wages, maintain facilities or invest in their academies is becoming increasingly indefensible.
Let us be clear: no one is saying that agents do not have a role. Many provide important professional services, such as legal advice, contract negotiation and logistical support, but the current system lacks transparency, consistency and limits. There are countless examples of agents receiving commissions from both buying and selling clubs on the same deal—a structure that would raise red flags in other regulated industries as a clear conflict of interest. Without a cap, there is little to stop the agents’ arms race escalating even further.
Clubs are forced to pay inflated fees just to stay competitive in the transfer market. In some cases, they are backed into a corner by players who will not sign unless their representative is paid what they demand. That imbalance needs to be addressed, not with heavy-handed bans, but with clear, enforceable limits that ensure agent fees are grounded in reality and tied to the financial position of the English football pyramid. My amendment would allow for the cap to adapt over time, either up or down, depending on the financial context of the day.
This debate also has a clear moral dimension. Football fans—the lifeblood of the game—see money flooding out of the system into offshore accounts while ticket prices rise, lower-league clubs fall into administration, as we have heard, and local facilities are left to deteriorate without needed investment. What message are we sending to those communities if we continue to turn a blind eye to this major issue?
The problem is not new. Lord Sugar famously described agents as “ten percenters” during his time as chairman of Tottenham Hotspur. However, in recent years, that 10% has crept up; we now see cases in which agents walk away with fees amounting to 15% or even 20% of a transfer value, and in some instances with fixed payments that are totally unrelated to the value or complexity of the deal. That is not healthy, efficient or sustainable, and it is not a good use of fans’ hard-earned money.
This amendment is about putting the interests of clubs, fans and the wider game first. In fact, we believe that clubs in the lower leagues would stand to benefit the most. Although some clubs in the top flight can absorb these costs through commercial revenues or broadcast income, those further down the pyramid often spend a disproportionate amount of their limited budgets on agents. That creates a vicious cycle: less money for youth development, community outreach and infrastructure, and more dependence on short-term deals brokered by intermediaries. By capping agent fees, we would take a meaningful step towards ending that cycle. We could help clubs plan more prudently, negotiate more confidently and operate on a fairer playing field. In doing so, we would strengthen the whole system, from the grassroots to the elite.
Let us not forget that the purpose of the Government’s regulator is not to micro-manage football, but to restore public confidence and ensure long-term stability. Agent fees are a glaring blind spot in the current model. If we are willing to regulate ownership tests, financial reporting and fan engagement, surely we must also be willing to act on a financial outflow that directly threatens the viability of many clubs.
This is a proportionate, sensible and timely amendment. It allows the Government to tackle one of the most visible and controversial financial issues in football; it helps preserve flexibility; it respects Parliament; and, most importantly, it places the interests of our clubs, fans and communities above those of unregulated market actors. We have an opportunity to help reshape the financial culture of English football for the better. Introducing a cap on agents’ fees is not only a necessary reform, but the right thing to do.
The Chair
Before we move on, there are one or two points I want to raise. First, we are expecting Divisions on the business in the main Chamber. If there is a Division, we will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes for the first Division, and 10 minutes’ injury time thereafter if required. Secondly, it is a bit warm in this room, so Members are welcome to take off their jackets.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment 131. Football is a worldwide industry, and the activity of football agents continues to be a significant contributor to the financial pressures on English football, as well as internationally. We recognise that this is a key issue, which is frequently raised by the industry. Agent fees are a significant cost pressure, particularly on clubs in the Premier League and the Championship. The largest fees are often paid in international transfer activity, where regulation is especially difficult without a global framework. There are also concerns about dual representation and conflicts of interest, which can further inflate costs.
However, the regulator cannot be the solution for all of football’s woes. The Bill establishes a club licensing regime with a tightly defined scope, in which agents are not included. The fan-led review recognised that and recommended pursuing an international and game-wide solution to football agents, rather than trying to address the issue in isolation. Acting unilaterally may end up being disadvantageous to English football. It is right that we follow the review’s recommendation not to try and address the issue in isolation, which reflects the unique scale and complexity of English football’s place in the global game.
I want to make it clear that the Government acknowledge the importance of this issue, and will continue to work with the industry on agents and fees. We will work closely with governing bodies to support full compliance once legal proceedings conclude in the courts, and to drive forward our shared ambition for transparency, integrity and best practice across the game. We will keep this issue under review, but for those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Mr French
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments and acknowledge a number of the points that she made. The purpose behind the amendment was to have the discussion about the impact of fees on the game. I accept some of her points about the international nature of the transfer market. I would like to continue discussing this with her and the regulator once in situ, because I think there is something we can do here, either formally or informally, to move the game along so that it stops losing so much money to agents’ fees. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 64, in schedule 5, page 103, line 18, after “specified” insert
“from time to time by the IFR”.
This amendment clarifies that the IFR may specify certain elements of the mandatory licence conditions from time to time.
The regulator will attach four mandatory licence conditions—the financial plan, the corporate governance statement, a fan consultation and an annual declaration—to the operating licence, both provisional and full, of each club. This means that all licensed clubs will need to comply with those requirements.
While the mandatory conditions are basic requirements that apply to all licensed clubs as standard, elements within them can be varied. For example, the regulator can specify when a club must submit and update a financial plan, or require that a plan contains additional information. As another example, the fan consultation condition can require that clubs consult plans at specified periods, which speaks to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East raised earlier.
Government amendment 64 simply makes it explicit that the regulator can respecify these elements to the mandatory licence conditions from time to time. The licensing regime is designed to be flexible and proportionate, and the mandatory licence conditions are no different. For instance, a Premier League club’s financial plan is likely to be more detailed than one for a National League club. If a club’s circumstances change—for instance, if it gets promoted or relegated—the regulator should have a chance to respecify the mandatory licence condition to ensure that it remains proportionate.
The regulator also needs to be able to keep pace with developments in the industry and changes in best practice —for example, if there are innovations in financial plans or mechanisms for fan engagement. Government amendment 64 simply makes that explicit in the Bill.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The schedule outlines the mandatory licence conditions that the regulator will attach to all licences as standard, regardless of the club’s circumstances. Those conditions are related to core areas of financial management, corporate governance, fan engagement, and reporting. They will form the foundations for the overall improved standards and sustainability of a club. Long-term financial sustainability is at the heart of the Bill, and is vital to making clubs more resilient to financial difficulties.
The financial plan condition requires clubs to present a plan that allows the regulator to understand the risk profile of the club and its plans for mitigating risks if necessary. That will include contingency planning and plans to wind a club back to a sustainable state if it faces unexpected financial difficulty. Those are not overly onerous requirements, but basic business planning that most well-run clubs will already be doing. It is anticipated that the regulator will help clubs update their plans if they exhibit unmanaged risk. If the updated plan still exhibits excessive risk, the regulator can place discretionary licence conditions on a club to help them meet the financial resources threshold requirement. That ensures that clubs can be ambitious but, equally, that failing to achieve those ambitions does not put the long-term financial sustainability of the club at risk.
A key tenet of a well-run business is good corporate governance, and the regulator will look to instil that into all licensed football clubs through the mandatory condition. Corporate governance standards in the industry need improving, with many clubs lacking even the most basic of good governance arrangements, such as a proper, functioning board. In consultation with the Football Association and other relevant stakeholders, the regulator will prepare and publish a code of practice about the corporate governance of regulated football clubs. Through that condition, licensed clubs will be required to submit a statement detailing how they are applying the code of practice. That will include what action they are taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.
Given the rich variety of clubs and fanbases, good supporter consultation will look different from one club to another. The fan engagement licence condition has been designed to reflect that, empowering the regulator to impose specific requirements on the form and frequency of supporter consultation where necessary. That mandatory licence condition works in tandem with the fan engagement threshold requirement, which is in schedule 4. The mandatory licence condition will be the minimum requirement for all clubs.
Stephanie Peacock
I will address some of my hon. Friend’s points, if he bears with me for a moment. If I do not, I will be very happy to give way.
All clubs must regularly consult a representative group of fans or a group elected by the club’s fans to represent them on the relevant matters listed in the Bill. The regulator can specify that the group is formed via fan elections—an additional measure the Government added to ensure the fan group can be independent from the club. The threshold requirement in schedule 4 then empowers the regulator to go further on fan engagement, if needed. It allows the regulator to impose discretionary licence conditions on clubs relating to fan consultation. There are several types of fan engagement that could be used to meet that requirement. No one way has been specified on the face of the Bill in order to allow for a bespoke approach to be taken at each club. We expect, however, that we would likely look to utilise existing structures where appropriate. Those would likely be organisations such as supporters’ trusts or fan advisory boards, which are often key independent fan bodies.
To address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, for the most part, individual clubs will be in the best position to understand the demographics of their fans. The regulator will be able to provide guidance for clubs on how best to consult fans, which will include how to approach consulting across a widespread fan base. It is, however, vital that they engage with a representative group of fans, and therefore, if a section of the fan base has not been engaged with, the regulator has the ability to specify the club should meet with them. That will ensure that clubs have an appropriate framework in place that allows them to meet regularly and consult the group on key strategic matters and supporter interest.
Clubs in the lower leagues will tend to have more a more local fan base, whereas larger clubs will tend to have fans from across the world. That diversity is part of the reason why the English football pyramid is so special. It is also why we want to implement proportional and flexible proposals that work for clubs across the pyramid. The regulator will implement a minimum requirement for fan engagement, which the regular fan consultations will be a significant part of, alongside protections for club heritage. I hope that answers my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. I am happy to give way if not, or he can contribute to the debate.
Stephanie Peacock
Perfect. The annual declaration condition requires a club to submit an annual declaration to the regulator, which sets out all the notifications that the club has made, or should have made, to the regulator in the preceding 12 months. Broadly speaking, these notifications relate to changes in the circumstances affecting the club that the regulator needs to know about to regulate effectively. That includes any non-compliance related to the club. A club will also have to issue a statement even if there are not any matters to notify the regulator about. That will create a formal touchpoint each year in lieu of any licence renewal; the emphasis will be on clubs to declare all relevant changes in circumstances and compliance against which they can then be held accountable.
Mr Betts
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mr Turner. The Minister is doing all she can to deal with situations that will apply to most clubs. The problem is those owners that do not want to engage. They will try to avoid this responsibility because they see it as an infringement of their right to run their club in the way they want.
I have to come back to Sheffield Wednesday because Mr Chansiri has a track record on this. He set up an engagement panel with fans, but he invited the fan groups he wanted to invite. Worse than that, once someone goes into a meeting with him, they have to sign a statement to say that they will not divulge any of the things that happen in that meeting. It is a closed shop.
I sat down with a myriad of different groups including the supporters’ trust, which is the biggest fan group by a long way, and several other groups, including the women’s group and the 1867 group. We formed an umbrella group to try to bring all the fan groups together. The club spoke to the groups and said, “If you get involved in the umbrella group, you will not be allowed on the engagement panel.” It is either/or because that is seen as an attack on the club and the chairman. You could not make it up—well, you can make it up, because we can see how the club is run. That is the problem.
How do we get around that situation? I was told the other day, “The chairman engages with fans. He has actually had two meetings of five hours each with fans.” But he does not answer any questions. When I asked one of the officers at the club why he will not answer questions, they said, “Well, they wanted to know what his business plan was.” It is not a bad question to ask, and that is exactly what the regulator is going to have the powers to do.
I am still not absolutely certain on what happens when the club tries to control the situation. Does the regulator then arbitrate? Does the regulator come in and say what they think good fan engagement looks like? It would be very helpful if the Football Supporters’ Association were to be given some role in that, because it understands fan engagement and fan involvement better than anyone. It knows what happens on the ground, it knows the tricks that the clubs pull and it knows how genuine fan engagement can be developed and implemented. I am not sure a new regulator will necessarily have all that intrinsic knowledge about what happens at clubs. Some role for the FSA in this would be helpful. In particular, it would help when problems arise of the sort that I have just explained.
I am sure Sheffield Wednesday are not the only club where owners do not really want fans around—they just want them to turn up, pay their money and go away. The Chair probably cannot get involved in the debate, but I can see you nodding, Mr Turner, because I am aware that there have been a few problems at Hull in that regard in the past. I ask that the Minister provide a bit more of an explanation and flesh this out further. In particular, sub-paragraph 8(2) reads:
“So far as the condition requires consultation with persons within sub-paragraph (1)(a), the condition may require the club to constitute a group of such persons”.
I know immediately how some clubs will constitute that group, and it will not be proper fan consultation.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. We would obviously expect the regulator to build on relevant expertise internally and via consultation. I have worked with and met representatives of the FSA a number of times. I pay tribute to the work they do, and I am sure that is the sort of group that the regulator will very much draw on.
My hon. Friend will completely understand why I am slightly reluctant to comment on live examples. That does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the points he makes on behalf of his constituents. I draw his attention to my remarks about how, if a section of the fanbase is not being engaged with, the regulator has the ability to require a meeting with the club. Where an owner or a club are not engaging, or not engaging effectively, the regulator will be able to intervene.
Mr Betts
It is helpful of the Minister to have elaborated on that. Would she go a bit further and say whether she anticipates that the regulator will engage with the Football Supporters’ Association when difficulties arise and there needs to be an independent look at fan engagement with a club?
Stephanie Peacock
We have talked about the regulator engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. We anticipate throughout the Bill—in lots of clauses, not just this one—that it will absolutely engage with relevant stakeholders.
If a certain group of fans feel that they are being ignored or excluded, or that the owner is not engaging in good faith or appropriately, the regulator has the ability to step in and specify that they should be engaged with more frequently, and sanctions may be imposed if the owner is not behaving correctly. There are enforcement powers that the regulator can draw on. We are clear that, although the approach is flexible and bespoke for different clubs, the voices of fans should be heard.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 21
Discretionary licence conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause relates to the discretionary licence conditions. Where needed, the regulator will use discretionary licence conditions to bring a club up to the required level of compliance with the threshold requirements. That will mean that the regulator is satisfied that the club can currently operate sustainably, and will be able to continue to continue to do so, in the financial, non-financial and fan engagement areas. Those conditions will be in addition to the standardised mandatory licence conditions. When applied, they will be tailored to the club’s specific circumstances and identified financial risk.
If a club is already meeting the threshold requirements set by the regulator, there will be no need to attach any discretionary licence conditions to that end. That means that the regulator can be light touch where appropriate, and that it does not need to directly intervene if a desired outcome is already being met.
Discretionary licence conditions could also be used to protect and promote the financial resilience of the football system. They will be used to resolve risks that might not threaten any one club significantly, but whose aggregated, correlated or multiplied effects may pose a significant risk to large parts of the football system or the pyramid as a whole. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
The clause formally sets out the regulator’s powers to attach, amend or remove discretionary licence conditions, which could bring a club toward meeting a threshold requirement or mitigate financial risks. It raises some concern about mission creep, so I hope the Minister will assure us that the regulator’s powers do not extend beyond those objectives. Should the regulator use the powers to effectively create new burdensome regulatory requirements, that would significantly change the purpose of the regulator.
Will the Minister please clarify what engagement the regulator will have with clubs to ensure they are aware of the discretionary licence conditions? Will there be any consultation or engagement with clubs prior to attaching or amending a discretionary condition? Will clubs have the ability to request a variation or removal of a condition? In what timeframe will that be processed?
If a club feels that a discretionary licence condition has been placed arbitrarily or punitively, how can it appeal or challenge the condition? What will the process look like, and what timescales will be used? Will the timescales be standardised, or will they be at the regulator’s discretion? Although some larger clubs may have the resources and budgets to appeal a condition, what support will be given to smaller clubs? Have the Government considered the potential merit of a tiered application based on the club’s size?
Aside from the concern about mission creep, it is important that these powers are exercised proportionately and based on evidence. Will there be any oversight of their use to ensure that happens? Subsection (4) states:
“The IFR may vary a discretionary licence condition where…the IFR considers that the condition is no longer effective, or…there has been a material change in circumstances”.
However, it fails to define what constitutes a material change in circumstances. The lack of such a definition leaves the door open for the Independent Football Regulator to vary conditions without sufficient reasons or evidence.
We ask those questions now because we are concerned about future legal cases if there is a lack of consistency and transparency surrounding how the conditions are applied. I would appreciate some answers from the Minister.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions. Throughout this process, we have been keen to reiterate that discretionary conditions must be proportionate to the club’s size and the league it plays in. We absolutely expect the regulator to engage thoroughly with a club before applying any discretionary licence conditions. Perhaps I could just draw on the conversation that we had in the previous debate in terms of fan engagement: I am hesitant to get into hypothetical scenarios, but it might be that, if a club is not effectively engaging with fans, that could be a discretionary licence condition if there is an obvious gap in what the club is doing. If the club does not believe the regulator has made a correct decision, it does have recourse through the appeals process, which is set out in part 9.
We want this to be a flexible regime so it can be light touch where appropriate. If the regulator does not need to attach extra conditions, it will not, but it will have that ability to make sure that all clubs are meeting the conditions they need to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Scope of powers to attach or vary discretionary licence conditions
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 108, in clause 22, page 14, line 37, leave out subsection (c).
This amendment prevents the IFR from being able to set licence conditions relating to the overall expenditure of a club.
Amendment 109, in clause 22, page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to amend the discretionary licence conditions by regulations.
Mr French
I rise to speak on clause 22 of this important Bill, which provides the Independent Football Regulator with powers to attach, amend and remove discretionary licence conditions for individual football clubs. At face value, this clause offers the regulator flexibility to respond to particular risks or circumstances on a case-by-case basis. However, as with all regulatory discretion, the true implications lie in how such powers may evolve over time, be interpreted, or be expanded.
In this Committee, it is our role to ensure that what begins as a sensible framework for tailored intervention does not become the thin end of a wedge that risks overreach, centralisation and, ultimately, the erosion of club autonomy. I believe strongly that English football does need reform in certain areas, but I also believe in restraint, clarity of purpose and fidelity to the principle that football clubs, however commercial they may have become, are civic institutions first and foremost. They belong to their communities, not to Whitehall, not to arm’s length bodies, and certainly not to ministerial discretion.
Clause 22, as drafted, gives the Independent Football Regulator a wide and open-ended ability to impose additional conditions on individual clubs—conditions that are not part of the baseline threshold requirements in the Bill, but which the regulator may, in its own judgment, decide are appropriate. We should acknowledge that there are circumstances in which such powers might be necessary. For example, where a club has narrowly avoided insolvency, has a particularly opaque ownership structure, or is operating under unusual financial pressures, the regulator may wish to impose temporary conditions to help safeguard the public interest, protect creditors or ensure better transparency.
That flexibility has its place. However, it must be anchored in the principles of proportionality, accountability and predictability. It is for that reason that I want to speak to three amendments that have been tabled in my name, each of which I believe would help materially improve the Bill by preventing mission creep, protecting the distinct role of the leagues, and ensuring that Parliament, not the Executive, retains the ultimate authority over the scope of regulation.
The first amendment would prevent the regulator from imposing discretionary conditions relating to a club’s internal controls—that is, the systems and procedures by which a club governs itself, monitors risks, approves spending and safeguards assets. These are matters properly for the board of directors, who have legal duties under company law, are accountable to shareholders and fans, and must answer to independent auditors.
To allow the regulator to second guess those internal arrangements and dictate how a club structures its finance team or risk-management processes would be a significant intrusion into corporate governance territory. Let us be clear: there is a distinction between requiring that a club has adequate systems and mandating the precise nature of those systems. The former is reasonable; the latter, we believe, is excessive.
We must also be mindful of the danger that the regulator could, perhaps with good intentions, begin to substitute its own preferred model of governance over the perfectly legitimate models that clubs themselves decide to adopt. For example, what works for a large Premier League club with international operations may not be appropriate or affordable for a League Two club or a community-owned side. Discretionary licensing conditions must not become a one-size-fits-all instrument that penalises innovation, tradition or diversity in club structures.
I support this amendment because it would help ringfence those areas of internal decision making that are rightly matters for the club’s board—subject to transparency and good practice but not for centralised prescription.
The second amendment that I have tabled would prevent the regulator from imposing licensing conditions relating to a club’s overall expenditure. Amendment 108 would prevent the regulator from imposing licence conditions relating to a club’s overall expenditure. This is a fundamental issue. English football operates within a competitive ecosystem, as we have discussed. Decisions about how much to invest in players, infrastructure, academies or commercial operations are matters of strategic importance for clubs. They should be driven by ambition, fan demand and commercial opportunity, not by the regulator’s view of what is appropriate spending.
We must not fall into the trap of conflating good financial regulation with financial central planning. The role of the Independent Football Regulator should be to monitor solvency, ensure robust business plans, enforce transparency and intervene when there are clear risks of harm. It is not the regulator’s job, and it should never become its job, to determine how much a club is allowed to spend. There is a world of difference between assessing whether spending is sustainable and attempting to control outright the volume of that spending.
Let us remember that the leagues themselves already impose cost controls. The Premier League has profit and sustainability rules. The English Football League enforces squad salary caps and financial fair play frameworks, and now has the new financial review panel. The regulator is not meant to replace those roles. It is not a shadow competition authority, nor should it seek to override club investment decisions, which often have complex justifications and long-term returns.
Amendment 108 would help to ensure that the regulator cannot use its discretionary power to micromanage investment levels. Such a step would go beyond the spirit and the letter of what the Bill intends to achieve. The goal is to protect clubs from existential risk, not to homogenise them or stifle ambition.
Amendment 109 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list of discretionary licence conditions by regulation. This is not a technical point; it goes to the constitutional heart of the Bill. The Independent Football Regulator must be just that: independent. Its scope, duties and powers must be defined by Parliament and subject to oversight. We cannot accept a model in which future Secretaries of State, by regulation and with minimal scrutiny, can expand the areas the regulator may interfere with. That would allow a future Government of any colour to alter the regulatory perimeter at will. Today, it might be internal controls; tomorrow, it might be club ticket pricing, political messaging or hiring policies. The clause must be narrowed to ensure that any expansion of discretionary licence conditions comes through primary legislation that is debated and approved by both Houses.
Regulatory stability is vital not only for clubs but for fans, leagues and the broader football economy. Clubs, particularly those in the lower leagues, need to be able to plan over multiple seasons. Uncertainty about what new regulatory burdens might be imposed, or fears that the regime could be altered mid-season by ministerial decree, will have a chilling effect on investment, sponsorship and ambition. Regulation must be predictable and principled, not politicised or ever-shifting. Amendment 109 would safeguard its integrity.
Clause 22 presents a risk of regulatory overreach, however well-intentioned it may be. The amendments would not strip the regulator of useful tools. They would simply place guardrails around its discretion and ensure that decisions of fundamental importance to club governance, financial independence and regulatory scope remain where they belong: with clubs, fans and Parliament.
We need a regulator that enforces minimum standards, upholds transparency and ensures financial resilience. What we do not need is a regulator that micromanages club affairs or displaces the judgment of boards and owners. Football clubs must remain free to compete, to innovate and to fail or succeed on their own merits—within a fair framework, yes, but not under constant intervention.
The amendments reinforce that principle. They are not ideological; they are practical, measured and consistent with the values that underpin the Bill. I urge the Committee to support them and, in doing so, to send a clear signal that we are legislating not to control football but to support it firmly, fairly and with the long-term interests of the game at heart.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendments, which I will take in turn in responding to the points that he made.
Broadly, amendments 107 and 108 concern integral powers for a financial regulator. Limiting those powers by reducing the scope of the regulator’s discretionary licence conditions would jeopardise its ability to achieve its objectives. On internal controls, the conditions cover areas such as the completeness and accuracy of reporting and information from a club, and continued compliance with the rules and regulations. If the regulator had no power to intervene to improve those areas where it was deemed necessary, it would not be able to bring a club up to its non-financial threshold requirement, and therefore the club would be unable to obtain a full operating licence.
Similarly, not allowing a financial regulator to require a club to limit its future expenditure to a sustainable amount, for example, would be self-defeating. This is a financial regulator, and it should have the power to intervene in a club’s finances if necessary, but—to respond directly to one of the points made by the shadow Minister —while it can direct the club to reduce expenditure, it cannot specify exactly how that is done, which is for the club to decide.
The regulator may only set licence conditions in such areas if a club is not meeting its threshold requirements. Any condition must be proportionate to the issue identified. The regulator must also have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and to whether a similar outcome could be achieved by a less burdensome means, as per the principles.
Mr French
I will repeat my arguments, but I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and we remain concerned about various aspects of the clause. That is why we tabled not just one, but three amendments, to try to put some safeguards and guardrails around future powers of the IFR, as I said.
Fundamentally, we believe that the ultimate responsibility for managing clubs should be that of the clubs themselves, while engaging with the fans, and we fear that without some of our amendments, the IFR will be too involved with the day-to-day running of clubs. That is why we tabled the amendments. We listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid that we are not fully satisfied, so we will press them to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 21 outlined the use of discretionary licence conditions, which can be used to bring clubs up to the threshold requirements for a full operating licence, if necessary. They can also be applied to clubs with a full licence if there is a risk that they might drop below the threshold requirements.
Clause 22 sets out the scope of powers that the regulator will have to attach or vary a discretionary licence condition. Under the financial resources threshold requirement, discretionary conditions may address only four areas: debt management, liquidity requirements, restricting a club’s overall expenditure and restricting a club’s ability to receive illicit finance. The fourth area, which enables the regulator to restrict a club’s ability to access funding if it has reasonable grounds to suspect it is connected to serious criminal conduct, is integral. It will empower the regulator to limit illicit finance, which is inherently unsustainable for a club.
Under the non-financial resources threshold requirement, conditions may relate to only one of three areas: internal controls, risk management and financial reporting. As outlined in clause 21, the regulator can also attach discretionary licence conditions to advance its systemic financial resilience objective. That objective is specifically to address systemic risks or structural issues by applying conditions to multiple clubs, or even to all licensed clubs. Clause 22 limits the scope of such conditions to those that relate to debt management or liquidity requirements, and those restricting a club’s overall expenditure.
In order to future-proof the regulator’s regime, the Secretary of State will have the power to amend the areas that discretionary licence conditions may relate to. However, as we have discussed, that can be done only if the regulator makes a request in writing to the Secretary of State, having carried out a consultation first, explaining why an amendment is needed by reference to the purpose of the Act. We have also made it explicit in the legislation that the regulator must consult all regulated clubs and each specified competition organiser before requesting any amendments. That means that the Secretary of State will not be able to amend the regulator’s powers to attach discretionary conditions on their own initiative and against the wishes of the regulator, which, as I said, will limit the risk of unwanted, politically motivated scope creep in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Procedure for attaching or varying financial discretionary licence conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 24 stand part.
Schedule 6.
Clause 25 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 23 sets out the procedure for attaching or varying financial discretionary licence conditions on clubs, which ensures that clubs and competition organisers are notified and given the appropriate opportunity to engage in advance when the regulator considers that a discretionary licence condition is needed. Where appropriate, the regulator will look to allow the relevant club and league to address identified issues and risks, so that the regulator does not have to formally intervene itself. That will allow the potential for the football industry to respond to issues, reducing regulatory intervention and producing a better regulatory response and outcome. The industry may be best placed to address specific issues within the overall context of a league’s own regulatory framework.
Before any action is taken by the regulator, there will be a period in which leagues and clubs are able to make representations, and the competition organiser will also be able to give a commitment to take action in lieu of the condition being attached or varied as proposed by the regulator. Clause 24 explains in further detail the mechanism for commitments in lieu of discretionary financial licence conditions. It is a final, formal opportunity for competition organisers to offer a self-regulatory solution to a problem identified by the regulator, so that the regulator does not have to step in. It is another important aspect of the regulator’s approach, which emphasises engagement and working with the industry to minimise formal intervention where possible. The regulator will still have powers to step in if the issue is not resolved, but the mechanism will give a competition organiser the chance to present a football industry-led solution to an identified risk.
The regulator can accept a commitment if it concludes that it should achieve the same results as the proposed discretionary licence condition and it does not conflict with the regulator’s objectives. The regulator does not have to accept the commitment, although, if it does not, it must provide reasons why. If a commitment proposed by a league will not achieve the regulator’s desired outcome, the regulator can reject it, and it will retain the power to intervene directly by imposing a discretionary licence condition on a club where any accepted commitment proves ineffective.
Schedule 6 expands on clause 24 by outlining the procedure where a competition organiser gives a commitment that the regulator is minded to accept, or requests a variation to a commitment in force, in lieu of the regulator’s attaching a financial discretionary licence condition to a club. The intention, as I referenced earlier, is for commitments to provide a less burdensome solution for all parties and still address the identified risk. However, for that to be the case, it is important that there is a clear procedure for interaction between clubs, the relevant competition organisers and the regulator, and the schedule sets out that procedure in further detail. Clubs can make representations to the regulator before accepting a commitment from a competition organiser, as well as before a competition organiser is released from a commitment.
Clause 25 sets out the procedure for the regulator to attach or vary a discretionary licence condition relating to the non-financial resources threshold requirement or the fan engagement threshold requirement. The regulator must notify the club and give it a period of no less than 14 days to make representations, but the clause allows the regulator to take more immediate action in situations that are more urgent and serious: if it thinks that giving a club notice and allowing a period for representations will jeopardise or risk jeopardising one of its objectives, it can apply the discretionary licence condition immediately and without prior notice. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
Clause 23 sets out the process that the Government’s new regulator must follow when it wishes to attach or vary a financial discretionary licence condition, which are by definition additional obligations that the regulator may impose on clubs that go beyond the mandatory licensing framework. In doing so, the clause confers on the regulator considerable further discretion. As with other discretionary powers in the Bill, the risk is not merely that the regulator uses its discretion, but that it does so inconsistently, unpredictably or in a way that strays beyond its core remit. Given that the powers provided by the clause relate directly to the financial obligations of clubs, the implications for competitiveness, investment and long-term planning are significant.
Although it is welcome that the clause does not set out a consultative process for how the financial conditions are imposed or amended, the process must not be a box-ticking exercise. Clubs should be able to challenge unreasonable conditions, and the regulator should be required to justify in clear terms why any new financial burden is necessary to meet the threshold requirements. It cannot become the case that discretionary conditions are routinely imposed as a back-door method of raising standards in areas for which Parliament has not explicitly legislated.
The risk of regulatory mission creep is particularly acute in a sector like football, in which the boundaries between finance, governance and culture are easily blurred. That is why we will be looking closely at whether there are sufficient checks, balances and transparency mechanisms in the clause to protect clubs from arbitrary financial conditions. Will the regulator issue any guidance on financial discretionary licence conditions, and will that guidance be made public? Will the Minister consider requiring an annual report to Parliament detailing how many clubs have had such discretionary financial conditions imposed, varied or removed, and on what grounds those decisions were made?
Without such checks, there is a real risk of an unequal competition taking place without fans and Parliament knowing, until it is too late and UEFA and FIFA have ejected us from their competitions. That is what I most fear may happen by accident. As we have discussed at length, the Bill is already flawed in this respect, and UEFA and FIFA would intervene if the regulator caused any impact on competitiveness. I only have to highlight the example of Crystal Palace, which is currently in the press, to demonstrate that UEFA and FIFA will stick to their rules rigidly, whether we like them or not. As I said when speaking to my amendment 97, any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and international frameworks.
Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a voice in the development and implementation of these requirements? As the clause stands, her new regulator will be able to attach or vary financial licence conditions that would that mean one club becomes more competitive than another. She has said that she intends for the regulator to be able to adapt to the circumstances of each club. However, we must be mindful that that would mean changing the level of competitiveness between clubs. That is the key risk. That is not a political point; it is sadly a risk and a fact of which we have to be mindful.
Let me stress-test that with a hypothetical question for the Minister on the Bill’s impact. Brighton & Hove Albion and Aston Villa will both compete in the Premier League next season, both have been in that league for a number of years, and both also compete for European football. If her regulator decided, for whatever reason, that Brighton required stricter or simply more financial licensing conditions than Aston Villa, there would be a competitive imbalance between the teams. Does she accept that fact, which is plainly obvious, and recognise that such club-by-club tailoring of rules and licence conditions is potentially a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules on fair competition? To give her a bit of time, I ask her to respond to that concern after I have spoken about the other provisions in the group.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister sets out his question very well. It sounds as though the situation could get very complicated, especially over time, as the regulator might impose certain conditions on certain clubs and severely distort the market. Does he have any comment on that?
Mr French
That is exactly my concern. In trying to tailor the conditions that we are discussing, there is a risk of inadvertently impacting the ability of clubs to compete on a fair and level playing field. I am concerned that that should not happen inadvertently, as the regulator evolves. That is why I keep pushing for more parliamentary oversight, so that we understand the risks. At the end of the day, fans will not forgive us as Members of this House if this goes wrong. I do not believe in any shape or form that the Government are aiming deliberately to get it wrong—I say that openly—but I fear that there will be unintended consequences, and that is the broader point that we have been trying to make in a number of the Committee’s debates.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 23 already tightly constrains the regulator’s ability to set discretionary licence conditions, and the shadow Minister’s earlier amendment sought to tighten that further, but it would have left the regulator unable to act as necessary to ensure financially sustainable clubs. It would have been unable to manage unsustainable debt or spiralling spending.
The regulator must act in accordance with its objectives and duties at all times, which include transparency and consistency. It can tailor regulation to clubs that will not breach UEFA statutes. I draw hon. Members’ attentions to page 14 of the Bill, which outlines in detail the scope of the powers to attach or vary licence conditions. Of course, a discretionary licence condition relating to the financial resource threshold requirement may only, as I said earlier,
“relate to debt management…relate to liquidity requirements…restrict the club’s overall expenditure, or…restrict the club’s ability to accept or receive funding which the IFR reasonably suspects to be connected to serious criminal conduct.”
We expect the regulator to work with clubs. If they are acting in good faith, we have said all along that the regulator will work with them. I think that answers the shadow Minister’s points.
In my opening remarks on this clause, I outlined in detail that there is a process available to come to a football-led solution. If the regulator thinks that giving a club notice or allowing for representations would jeopardise or risk jeopardising one of its objectives, it can apply the licence condition immediately, without prior notice. However, there is scope within the Bill and the regulator’s powers to reach football-led solutions in which it works together with clubs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Part 4: overview and interpretation
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 26, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) respects and promotes the protection of human rights and prevents modern slavery (as set out in section [Human rights and modern slavery considerations]).”
This amendment is linked to NC8.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Human rights and modern slavery considerations—
“(1) When considering whether a person (‘A’) satisfies the requirement in section 26(7)(c), the Regulator shall have regard to (among other things)—
(a) whether A has been complicit in any egregious or consistent violation(s) of international human rights law, whether of any international human rights treaty, customary law, or other instrument,
(b) whether A has been convicted, cautioned or reprimanded or complicit in any egregious or consistent violation(s) of domestic human rights legislation, including breaching provisions in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 or equivalent national legislation,
(c) whether A has been subject to a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order,
(d) whether A has been found liable in a civil claim relating to a human rights violation,
(e) whether A has been convicted of an offence, cautioned or reprimanded for failing to comply with their human rights and modern slavery reporting and due diligence obligations under applicable domestic legislation,
(f) any representations made by A or the club in accordance with the notice.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) where A is a body corporate or other non-corporeal entity (including a government or nation state), the Regulator shall consider the actions of anyone who controls that body corporate or entity (and “control” shall have the meaning given in section 255 of the Companies Act 2006). and
(b) the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).
(3) In respect of subsection (1)(c) and (d), a risk of disrepute shall not be valid grounds for disqualification of any person if such disrepute would, in the reasonable opinion of the Regulator, be unfounded.
(4) In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraph 15, the Regulator may establish a committee or committees to discharge its functions under this Clause.”
This new clause would prohibit individuals with a record of human rights abuses from club ownership.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. The amendment would prohibit individuals with a record of human rights abuses from club ownership. Our national game is a source of huge pride to our country and everyone in this room. It should not be exploited by individuals and regimes that want to launder their reputations using some of our greatest cultural and sporting assets.
Strengthening the proprietary tests for prospective owners and directors, with clear tests about human rights, would enable UK football to promote and protect what we know is special about our game and would promote and protect the liberal and democratic western values that we all hold so dear. It is wrong that we allow football to roll out the red carpet for despots. Let us consider a future in which the owner or potential owner of a football club is also the head of a state or a Minister in the Government of a foreign state that suppresses its own people or is involved in illegal military action, perhaps in a failed state. That owner is also clearly financially linked to activities that involve the plunder of that failed state’s mineral wealth. If that person were to be linked directly to such action, which breaches international human rights laws, would this Government, football and this country accept it? We think that we should not, and that is why we have tabled the amendment and the new clause.
Mr French
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for explaining the objectives behind the amendment, which is aimed at preventing individuals with a record of human rights abuses from owning a club. My question for the hon. Member is about new clause 8(2)(b), which states that
“the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
In other words, it will have discretion to determine whether such conduct constitutes human rights abuses. Given we are talking about a football regulator, the obvious question to ask is about what qualifications the regulator would need to make such a decision. What information could they rely on? Would we be looking for Government involvement in that, given that that would probably provide the intellectual experience required? Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham think it might improve the new clause to include a route of appeal against such a decision, as a matter of natural justice, so we are seen to give individuals the right of appeal if they believe that they have been wrongly classified?
Joe Robertson
I have sympathy with the aims of the amendments, but I also have a few questions. I wonder whether the wording in the Bill about “requisite honesty and integrity” might cover the issue that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is trying to deal with in new clause 8. I note that amendment 75 would do more that protect against owners with a record of human rights abuses, because it would require them to promote human rights. I obviously have no problem with people promoting human rights, but the amendment would put a duty on an owner to do something positive to show that they are fit and proper. I wonder whether that is really the hon. Member’s intention.
Stephanie Peacock
It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling his amendments. It is absolutely right that clubs should have suitable owners, which is why the new statutory owners and directors test is a key focus of the regulatory regime. Because we have provided the regulator with statutory powers, including information-gathering powers and information-sharing gateways with other government agencies such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the regulator will be better placed to apply all elements of its tests than the relevant leagues. Unlike the tests used by the leagues, the regulator will assess owners’ and officers’ suitability in the round, as well as any relevant mitigating circumstances, leading to a better determination of whether an individual is suitable.
A core part of the owners and directors test is the fitness test, which the hon. Gentleman’s amendments seek to expand. The individual ownership fitness test criteria—honesty and integrity, and financial soundness—have been carefully designed. The relevant matters the regulator must consider are listed in clause 37, which I will speak to in a later sitting. They are based on precedent, and are specifically relevant to whether someone is suitable to be an owner of a football club.
All individuals will be tested against the same criteria. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that much of what his amendments seek to achieve is already delivered by the Bill as drafted. In line with the relevant matters listed in clause 37, if an individual has had legal proceedings brought against them, whether civil or criminal, including in the international courts, the regulator must have regard to that.
The regulator will also look at whether the individual has had regulatory or disciplinary action of any kind brought against them. If that action has a bearing on their honesty or integrity, the regulator must take that into account and could potentially find them unsuitable on that basis. That means that offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or equivalent legislation, whether in the UK or elsewhere, are already captured by the Bill’s owners and directors test, as are any behaviours that have given rise to legal, regulatory or disciplinary action against the owner in any forum, as well as egregious actions committed outside the UK that can be proven and that would have been criminal if done here. In addition, the regulator will consider whether any individual is sanctioned by the UK Government—for example, because of their connection to a foreign state. The regulator will take those things very seriously.
Where the amendments go further than existing drafting, however, we believe they are not appropriate. New clause 8 gives the regulator absolute discretion to determine who is “complicit” in violations, but complicity is not a clear legal test. That would fundamentally undermine the general principle of how the test is applied, and would lead to a subjective decision. The Bill, as drafted, ensures that any negative determination the regulator makes must be evidence-based. It will test every individual against the same criteria. It is crucial that it remains that way. The new clause also states that the regulator can establish a committee to help make decisions about owners. We agree that it is important that the regulator can do that, which is why it is already possible under schedule 2, so there is no need for the amendment.
The shadow Minister also spoke about appeals, which we will come on to when we debate clause 28. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his amendment and not to move the new clause.
Max Wilkinson
I am reassured by what the Minister has said. The points raised by Conservative Members are all valid and we will take them on board.
On the point about honour and integrity, I suggest that the kind of people who commit these crimes will not admit to them readily. In cases that may arise, it may be obvious that something has happened only after some time, and individuals who we know have been doing something might end up owning football clubs. If that were to occur in the near future, we might reflect on today’s discussion and the powers that the regulator might have had.
We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote—we recognise the numbers in the room—but I am glad that we have put the debate on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
We have seen too many instances of unsuitable custodians mismanaging clubs, taking risks that jeopardise a club’s long-term future, and disregarding the interests of fans and communities. It is evident that the industry’s existing tests have not been effective enough at screening and rooting out bad actors. Existing tests are conducted on a self-declaration basis, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham just mentioned. Consequently, those tests have allowed in owners who have long histories of business bankruptcies, and owners have later been imprisoned for crimes including money laundering.
That is why part 4 of the Bill establishes strong, new statutory owners and directors tests, including by giving the regulator the power to test the suitability of prospective new owners and officers before they can enter regulated clubs, as well as the power to test incumbent owners and officers in certain circumstances. The clause provides an overview of part 4 and signposts to the rest of the clauses in this part of the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr Dillon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for tabling new clause 15. It is the result of close co-operation between local parliamentarians and the Supporters Trust at Reading, which I have mentioned previously. I thank it for its constructive approach to the Bill.
The new clause mandates that individuals must notify the IFR if they are aware of any evidence that indicates a change in circumstances that could affect the ability of club owners or key personnel who are essential to the management and survival of football clubs to meet the statutory fitness criteria set forth in clause 26. It is widely recognised that whistleblowing is a vital tool for public scrutiny and accountability of individuals, and that wrongdoing and bad practice need to be called out. It is therefore essential that there are protections to encourage people to speak out. The new clause seeks to flesh out formal whistleblowing routes with regard to football ownership. Although I welcome and recognise the detail already included in the Bill on that, we need to go much further.
We need to expand the list of groups and stakeholders who would be required to report any concerns that they have about the suitability of owners or officers, including the governing body for the relevant league, the football supporters’ trust and the Football Supporters’ Association. It is often the case that those stakeholders have more knowledge about the day-to-day operations inside a club than fans, due to their proximity to the club’s inner workings. As many fans do not have the same connection or influence as such organisations, it is vital to provide a strong and accessible voice for them when issues arise, particularly when evidence concerning the survival of a club comes to light.
It is essential that the individuals listed in new clause 15 have the opportunity and route to escalate their concerns when necessary. If we take as an example my local EFL club, Reading, there may have been some people in the EFL and in the club itself who had suspicions about the deteriorating situation at the club long before those problems came to the surface and to the attention of the fanbase. If this new clause had been in place, it would have given stakeholders a formal route to raise such concerns and ensure that Dai Yongge was scrutinised properly. That could have gone some way to resolving the situation before the club ended up teetering on the brink; it is only recently that it has been sold and been able to recover.
To conclude, new clause 15 would enable accountability and monitoring of owners during their time in charge. Football club owners are temporary custodians of heritage assets that are vital to our communities; at the very least they should face regular scrutiny. It is for those reasons that I hope new clause 15 is accepted.
Joe Robertson
Once again, I have some sympathy with the aims of the new clause and I see where the hon. Member is trying to go with it. However, as it is currently drafted, it has a lot of breadth and contains vagaries that could throw up all sorts of issues. I will just deal with those issues briefly.
By the way, I like the idea of identifying “material change” to the extent that someone who may once have been considered fit and proper is no longer considered fit and proper, because of something that has happened or something that has been identified.
I have a problem with imposing a duty, particularly on some of the groups set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2). For example, there would be a positive duty on “club employees”, which would include some very junior members of staff. In English law, imposing a duty on someone to do something is fairly exceptional. Although I could probably tolerate imposing a duty on “officers and board members”—if people have attained that level within an organisation, they should expect duties to come with it—I could not tolerate imposing a duty on all “club employees”. That is a difficulty I have. Also, that list is not exhaustive. Subsection (1) refers to:
“ Individuals or organisations associated with a regulated club”.
That could capture a lot more people than those listed in subsection (2).
I am also slightly concerned that the duty for notification applies:
“when they”—
that is, the person—
“have evidence or information that a material change in circumstances has occurred”.
I suspect that that could open the floodgates and be misused as a means to try and potentially smear someone, or raise questions about whether they are fit and proper, based on some pretty spurious “evidence”. Such evidence could be pretty much anything—even a trivial matter. I would have hoped that there would be some sort of threshold, such as evidence that points to a strong or compelling case. “Evidence” on its own is a very, very low bar and could encourage all sorts of minor allegations that could make the job of the football regulator far bigger than it is intended to be.
Otherwise, I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for speaking to the new clause on behalf of his colleague, the hon. Member for Wokingham. The point that he made is very interesting and I have great sympathy with fans of Reading football club, who he referred to, and with fans of other clubs around the country that have fallen foul of their owners, who, I think it is fair to say, did not have the club’s long-term interests at heart. I say that as someone who has already referred to Charlton a number of times in this Committee—been there, done it, got the T-shirt. As I say, I have a lot of sympathy with fans of Reading and I hope that the future looks brighter for that club.
Even before the election, I publicly supported strengthening ownership tests. I believe them to be part of one of the most fundamental roles that the regulator should play. We should ensure the consistency of those tests between the leagues, and we should ensure that up and down the country we have the best people in charge of such community assets, and that they have the long-term interests of clubs at heart, as I believe the overwhelming majority of club owners do.
Those examples of where problems came to a head and caused significant damage to communities have proven that there is a difference in some of the tests applied by the leagues historically, with gaps and loopholes that individuals have looked to exploit. Such examples have also highlighted the need for ongoing review by the regulator about how it manages the information that comes to light. An owner might be deemed an appropriate and fit person to run a club in 2025, but changes to their financial circumstances—assuming that they have other business interests—could mean that they become more stretched, and they might be involved in other activity that comes to light, so it would be right for the review to take place as early as possible to minimise the potential damage to clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East posited a number of important legal challenges around this point of duty. I have sympathy with the broader objective of new clause 15, but this issue of duty poses a number of risks for people who are not board-level employees or in significant roles of influence. I think that all Members would seek to avoid a situation where people disengage from a process because they are concerned about that word “duty”, and what that could leave them exposed to legally if they were to come across information, for example, but did not feel confident in passing it on. That might arise in a variety of circumstances, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 15 in particular and on how we can seek to deliver the broader objective of strengthening ownership tests, without having to go down the rabbit hole of this duty element.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for tabling new clause 15 and the hon. Member for Newbury for speaking to it, but it is already open to anyone, including all those listed in the new clause, to share relevant information with the regulator. That is in addition to the existing requirements on clubs, owners and officers, which the new clause unnecessarily duplicates.
I assure the Committee that the regulator will take credible reports about unsuitable owners or officers very seriously, whether they come from a whistleblower inside the industry or any other source. We do not need to create a separate obligation in the Bill for individuals to report information to the regulator. In fact, new clause 15 would place regulatory obligations on new individuals and organisations, thereby extending the effect of the regulator’s regime. It would take things a step further and create a duty—beyond the relevant owner, officer or club—for club employees, competition organisers, supporters trusts, the FSA and Fair Game to notify the regulator. As matters stand, anyone including owners, officers, club employees, competition organisers, the Football Supporters’ Association, trusts and supporters can notify the regulator if they have information regarding an individual’s suitability to be an owner or an officer. There is no need for any specific legislative provision to enable that. As the regulator will only regulate clubs, owners, officers and competition organisers, we believe that it would not be appropriate to obligate other persons to report any changes to the regulator. The new clause would extend the scope of the regulator.
The key point is that we do not think that that should be a duty. It is of course open to all those whom I have listed, and indeed any others, to approach the regulator, which as I say will take any reports seriously.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the clarification, which I hope is helpful to the hon. Member for Newbury. In essence, is she saying that it is important for regulators to create an atmosphere of confidence, where individuals who have that type of information can share it with the regulator directly, irrespective of new clause 15?
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, absolutely. We very much want that confidence to be established. We simply do not think that regulating junior employees, supporters trusts or the FSA is appropriate or proportionate. On that basis, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Newbury did not press the new clause to a vote.
Mr Dillon
Given the assurances of the Minister, I am happy not to move new clause 15. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe for seeking clarification about the atmosphere that will be created.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Duties to notify IFR of prospective new owner or officer
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The regulator’s owners and directors test has been designed to prevent unsuitable custodians from running or owning clubs. Therefore, the regulator needs to know who a club’s prospective new owners and officers are before they buy or join a club so that they can be tested.
Clause 27 places duties on a person to notify the regulator when there is a reasonable prospect of them becoming a new owner or officer of a regulated club. This will ensure that the regulator receives advance notice that an application should be coming, and it will help the regulator prepare to act quickly when it receives the application. The clause also places the same duty on regulated clubs themselves, as another means of ensuring that the regulator will be notified.
The regulator needs to know a person’s role at the club so that it can prepare to assess whether they are suitable to be an owner or officer of that club. That is why, where the notification relates to an officer, the notification must state their proposed job title or job description, and any senior management functions they will carry out.
Enforcement measures, such as censure statements or financial penalties, are available to the regulator should it determine that this requirement has not been complied with without reasonable excuse. That will deter those who do not wish to comply with the regime. I commend clause 27 to the Committee.
Mr French
As the Minister just outlined, clause 27 requires regulated clubs to notify about prospective new owners and officers if there is a reasonable prospect of such a change. It also requires an officer’s proposed job title, job description and senior management functions. If the football regulator is not notified before the change, the club must notify as soon as practically possible.
I am slightly concerned that this could be a burdensome requirement on some clubs. Any large organisation, such as a football club, will often cast a wide net when considering such appointments, with people on the radar long in advance. I therefore ask the Minister to enlighten us on what she believes constitutes “a reasonable prospect”. For example, would media speculation that the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) might move to the Minister’s Department be considered “a reasonable prospect”? There are non-political examples of how that might work too, but it would be interesting to hear what the Government believe to be a reasonable prospect.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As with everything throughout this Bill, we would expect the regulator to act proportionately. Where there is a reasonable prospect, it is obviously very helpful for the regulator to be informed of that, because that will, of course, allow them to move as speedily as possible. We therefore think this is an appropriate provision. The hon. Gentleman tempts me to get into other examples, but I will resist that, if he does not mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Determination of suitability required for new owner
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
As we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, football clubs hold unique importance to their fans and local communities, and it is these fans who lose out when clubs are exploited or mismanaged by unsuitable owners and officers. Clause 28 prohibits a person from becoming a new owner of a club unless the regulator has determined they are suitable to own that club beforehand. Prospective new owners will be required to provide an application containing information about how they propose to run a club and where club funding will come from. This will better ensure that prospective owners are clear from the outset about how they would deliver their plans for a club.
Once a complete application has been provided, the regulator can only pass the individual owner if the following requirements are met. First, the individual must meet the individual ownership fitness test. This means that they have the requisite honesty and integrity and are financially sound. Secondly, they must have sufficient financial resources. Finally, the regulator must not have grounds to suspect that the individual has any source of wealth that is connected to serious criminal conduct, including crimes such as drug trafficking and fraud. This will better mitigate against illicit finance in the game by requiring new owners to undergo the regulator’s test. Clause 28 will prevent unsuitable custodians from ever becoming owners.
Clause 29 prohibits individuals from becoming a new officer of a regulated club unless the regulator has determined that they are suitable beforehand. Once the prospective officer has provided a complete application to the regulator, it will assess them to ensure they meet individual officer fitness criteria. That means they must possess the requisite honesty, integrity and competence, and be financially sound. If the regulator is satisfied that the individual meets those requirements, it must find them suitable to be an officer of the club; otherwise, it must find them unsuitable. When making this determination, the regulator will take into account the matters listed in clause 37. By requiring new officers to undergo the regulator’s test, this clause will stop unsuitable individuals from becoming officers.
It is possible that someone might take up a position at a club without first having undergone the owners and directors test. That may be a blatant and deliberate breach of the requirement to undergo the test before joining the club. A prospective owner may act in bad faith, hoping that once they are “in”, the regulator would be more hesitant to fail them. However, in some circumstances a person may fall within the definition inadvertently or have some other relatively innocent reason for the breach. This may occur, for example, when a person inherits significant equity in a football club. Alternatively, a person may dispute in good faith whether their actions bring them within the Bill’s definition of an owner.
Therefore, where a person becomes a new owner or officer without the regulator having determined their suitability, clause 30 gives the regulator the power to respond decisively but flexibly. When the regulator becomes aware this has happened, it has two options: to either notify the new owner or officer that they are automatically treated as unsuitable, or require them to submit an application as though they were a prospective applicant. The regime cannot be allowed to be abused; the regulator must have the discretion and the teeth it needs to address harm to the sector. Clause 30 is an important step to achieving this aim.
If the regulator is minded to fail a new or prospective owner officer, clause 31 requires the regulator to give that person and the relevant club the opportunity to make representations. This must take place before the regulator makes its final decision. That will allow a new owner, officer or relevant club an appropriate opportunity to argue their case before the regulator finds them unsuitable. This ensures the regulator has all relevant information available to it, allowing it to make better decisions so that the regime is more effective.
Football is a fast-paced industry where clubs operate within constraints such as league seasons and transfer windows. Timely decisions about the suitability of new owners and officers is important for clubs’ financial sustainability. Without deadlines, we have seen league determinations drag on, unable to reach a decision. The regulator will need to conduct a thorough level of scrutiny of new owners and directors, but it also needs to make decisions in an appropriate timeframe to ensure clubs are not unnecessarily impacted.
That is why the regulator will be subject to a statutory deadline when it tests the suitability of new prospective owners and officers, which clause 32 sets out. When a complete application is provided, the determination period starts. By the end of that period, the regulator must find an applicant suitable or unsuitable. As well as providing certainty to the industry, the deadline will incentivise new owners and officers to provide the necessary information the regulator needs to assess suitability in a timely manner.
If the regulator cannot decide before the initial deadline is met, it can extend the determination period, and this will provide it with the necessary flexibility to gather more information to make well informed but timely decisions. The determination period, including the maximum amount of extra time, will be set by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. This will ensure the regulator is bound by it—but there is still flexibility for the deadline to be amended in the future. If the regulator cannot make the decision before the period expires, the person is automatically determined to be unsuitable. This means that only owners or officers that the regulator is confident are suitable will be allowed to get involved with clubs.
The measures set out in the group of clauses will form a key part in ensuring our clubs have suitable custodians, which in turn will help to safeguard the financial sustainability of football over the long term. Therefore, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Mr French
Clause 29 prohibits any person from becoming an owner of a regulated club without first applying to the independent football regulator and being determined suitable for that role. It requires any applicant to provide information on the proposed operation of the club, estimated costs, how those costs will be funded and the source of funding, which is a point that is been raised already in this Committee.
The football regulator must make an affirmative determination regarding the application if the potential owner is considered to have sufficient financial resources and meets the individual ownership fitness criteria. I already spoken about why I believe it is important that these fitness tests are strengthened wherever possible, but there are a couple of questions I would like to ask the Minister on this clause first.
What assurances can the Minister provide that this process will be completed swiftly and will not unnecessarily delay any ownership changes which, as we have already discussed, may need to happen very quickly when a club is under significant financial stress—to ensure wages are paid and to prevent further hardship when seeking a change of ownership?
Clause 30 sets out what should happen in the event that a person has become an owner or an officer of a regulated club without first obtaining the suitability determination from the football regulator. The clause assumes that the football regulator “becomes aware”; is the expectation that there is a disclosure from the club, or will the IFR be probing clubs, looking at news reports, Companies House and so on? It would be helpful for Members to have an insight into how that might look, because this clause does not offer a specific timeframe within which the football regulator must act at once if it becomes aware of an unauthorised appointment at a club.
It also seems that the football regulator can indefinitely extend the deadline for submitting such an application; the clause fails to clarify how many times and under what conditions. I therefore wonder whether the Minister has considered the potential effects on the stability of the club of the football regulator deeming an individual unsuitable: would that open clubs to legal or operational risk, and would there be financial consequences of those risks? It is vital that decisions taken by the regulator are independent and impartial, as already discussed, so what safeguards will there be to ensure that neither media nor political pressure is exerted on the football regulator to deem an owner unsuitable?
Clause 31 states that the football regulator must “have regard to” representations from affected clubs or individuals. What does that constitute in reality—a response, or simply a consideration? Must the football regulator provide written reasoning if it rejects the arguments made in the representation? Does this clause not lack basic safeguards and, without a framework for how representations should be made or evaluated, does it not risk leading to inconsistent decision making? Again, I fear there would be various legal challenges, given the financial implications of such decisions.
There is also no requirement, it appears, for the football regulator to consider other external stakeholders, which could include other directors or supporters’ trusts involved with the running of a club. Should an individual receive a negative determination, the legal and financial resources to make a strong representation within a specified timeframe might be considerable. Does the Minister envisage many applicants seeking legal aid or other advisory support mechanisms in such a scenario?
Clause 32 outlines several points about the football regulator’s determinations after an individual makes an application under clauses 28 and 29. The IFR seems to be able to extend its determination periods several times, but the clause fails to outline for what reason an extension might be justified and how long it should or could be. Can applicants, for example, challenge or appeal those delays, if the reason for them lay with the regulator rather than the individual club? A delay by the regulator would risk unfairly penalising applicants who were not personally at fault for it. Will there be an obligation on the football regulator to inform applicants of approaching deadlines, to ensure that they know when the determination period is nearing its end, and what oversight will there be to ensure that extensions are not routine?
Lastly, will there be monitoring of how often extensions are used and how long determinations typically take, so that clubs can start to plan for such instances where they occur? That would also give greater certainty to the leagues because, as I highlighted earlier, it is not just individuals, but clubs themselves at risk. If we think about not just the financial penalties imposed, but the points that can be deducted, there are major implications for the competitive nature of the league. I look forward to the Minister answering a few of those questions.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions. I reiterate, as I said in an earlier intervention, that the licensing is separate from the ownership. On some of his points about the extension, we have talked throughout proceedings about being collaborative and working with owners and clubs; if the regulator needs more information, it has the ability to provide an extension. Of course we would expect it to provide appropriate information of approaching deadlines or expected timelines. I will not repeat what I said in my main contribution on this group, but I did try to set out some examples where a breach is a genuine accident or someone has inherited equity, versus somebody trying to circumvent the regime. The regulator has that flexibility and a regime with teeth so that it can respond to both scenarios.
The shadow Minister posed a number of questions, so I will double-check Hansard and, if I have not answered them all, I will write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
It is important for sustainability that incumbent owners and officers continue to be suitable custodians of their clubs. That is why the Bill gives the regulator the power to test incumbents if it has grounds for concern about their suitability. That will help mitigate the risk of harm from individuals already in the system.
Clause 33 places a duty on incumbent owners and officers, as well as regulated clubs, to notify the regulator where they consider there to have been a relevant material change in circumstance. Notably, this is a change of circumstances that could have an impact on whether the regulator would find the individual suitable to be an owner or officer of the particular club—for example, if an officer became subject to criminal or relevant civil proceedings that the regulator was not previously aware of, or if an owner’s source of wealth had changed in some way that is relevant to whether it is connected to serious criminality.
The notification must explain the material change in circumstances and its relevance to an individual’s suitability. If this information gives the regulator grounds for concern about the incumbent’s suitability, it has the power to test them under clauses 34 or 35. Ensuring that the regulator is aware of relevant material changes will better enable it to ensure that incumbent owners and officers continue to be suitable.
Clause 34 provides the regulator with the necessary powers to test incumbent owners already in place in clubs where there is concern about their suitability. This allows the regulator to tackle any risks to clubs from unsuitable owners already within the industry.
Mr Betts
I just want to be clear about the grounds on which the regulator can investigate or intervene. We talked about the source of wealth being criminal, which has been clearly laid out. However, if the source of wealth is one that has diminished substantially, so the owner cannot now show that they can continue to run the club, is that a reason for the regulator to consider intervening?
Stephanie Peacock
There are different thresholds for new owners and incumbent owners; with new owners, it is grounds for suspecting, but with incumbent owners, it is the balance of probabilities. Of course, the latter is a higher bar, given the existing owner’s property rights. I do not know whether that fully answers my hon. Friend’s question, but I can write to him with some further detail.
Mr Betts
It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me because this is a big question in football. There are owners who promise the world and then find that they cannot deliver it; indeed, they can deliver very little. I come back to Sheffield Wednesday, but there have been other owners, such as Ken Bates at Oldham, who set up a structure that could not then be financially maintained. It is important to understand whether the regulator has power in that circumstance to intervene.
Stephanie Peacock
Absolutely, and I refer back to some of our earlier conversations. If we take the regulatory regime as a whole, at the very basic level, owners need to have a business plan, consult their fans and be fit and proper—those three things work together. As we spoke about earlier, if the business plan does not match the source or amount of funds, the regulator can go back and direct them. Perhaps that provides a little more clarity, but I am very happy to add more detail.
Mr Betts
I think the Minister and I are getting there. Obviously, the business plan and the source of funds come with a new owner and then continue. However, with an owner already in place, does that still apply? Can the regulator say, “Wait a minute. I need to see a business plan and a source of funds to ensure that you are a fit and proper person”?
Stephanie Peacock
In certain circumstances. I am hesitant to use the word “new” information, because the information may not be new. However, if relevant information comes to light for the regulator, which may be new or pre-existing but relevant, the regulator can look at it. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the difference in the threshold between new owners and existing owners.
Mr Betts
I will make just one more point—I think it is important that we understand precisely what this means. Clause 33 talks about an owner or club having a responsibility to notify the regulator. Surely that does not mean that nobody else could notify the regulator, if relevant information came to them. Could they then pass it on for the regulator to look at?
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, absolutely. That goes back to the discussion that we had earlier on new clause 15. The regulator will take credible information seriously.
Clause 34 provides the regulator with the necessary powers to test incumbent owners—those already in place—of clubs, where there is a concern about their suitability. It will allow the regulator to tackle any risk to clubs from unsuitable owners within the industry, while recognising that there are suitable owners already in the system who do not need to be tested. We want to ensure that the approach is not overly burdensome for the regulator, and we do not want to deter investment in the game. Incumbent owners can be assessed to ensure that they have the requisite honesty and integrity, and are financially sound enough, to own a club. If the regulator has information that gives it grounds for suspicion, incumbent owners can also be tested on their source of wealth. The regulator will need to establish if wealth is connected to serious criminal conduct, including crimes such as drug trafficking or fraud. The regulator will not remove incumbent owners because of a mere suspicion about their source of wealth. Rather, an incumbent owner must be treated as unsuitable if the regulator is more sure than not that their source of wealth is connected to serious criminal conduct. The clause will ensure that the regulator has the appropriate powers to test incumbent owners where a risk of harm arises.
Clause 35 provides the regulator with the necessary powers to test incumbent officers—those already in place—of clubs, where a risk of harm arises. As with the provisions for owners in clause 34, testing of officers is limited to cases where there is concern about suitability. It allows the regulator to tackle any risks to clubs from unsuitable officers already in the industry. Incumbent officers can be tested to ensure that they have the requisite honesty, integrity, competence, and are financially sound enough, to continue in their role.
The Government are aware that finding an incumbent owner or officer unsuitable would bring about significant consequences for that person, and may cause concern for clubs or fans. That is why, when the regulator is minded to fail an incumbent owner or officer, clause 36 gives the individual and the club concerned an opportunity to make representations before the regulator makes its final decision. That allows an officer or owner an appropriate opportunity to argue their case before the regulator finds them unsuitable. The regulator has the ability to test or re-test incumbent owners and officers, which will prevent unsuitable custodians from harming clubs over the long term, not just at the point of entry. That will help to ensure the sustainability of clubs over the long term, benefiting football now and into the future. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
Clause 33 places a duty on clubs to notify the Government’s new regulator of any change in circumstances relating to the current owner or an officer that could impact their suitability under the regime set out in part 4 of the Bill. On one level, it is an understandable provision. To fulfil its statutory duties, the regulator must be kept informed of material changes, as ensuring the fitness and propriety of owners and officers is a core part of its remit. However, the clause as drafted raises a number of serious and practical concerns about how such a duty will be defined, interpreted and enforced.
The first issue with the clause is its vagueness. What exactly constitutes a “change in circumstances”? The explanatory notes prepared by the Government give a small indication of what such circumstances might include, stating that
“Relevant material changes could include, for example, an officer becoming subject to criminal proceedings or regulatory action”.
That is somewhat clear, but what qualifies as “regulatory action”? Could it be an Ofcom investigation, for example? The explanatory notes add that
“new information coming to light regarding whether an owner’s source of wealth is connected to serious criminality”
also qualifies as a material, relevant change. What qualifies as “new information”? Does it mean a full-blown criminal investigation or spurious claims, potentially made by activist groups against foreign owners? How the provision will work needs to be clarified.
The Government and the new regulator must be up front, open and honest with fans and Parliament as to what those terms actually mean. We fear that the Government are deliberately muddying the waters around what the regulatory environment would look like under the Bill, and around the rules that the regulator will seek to apply. The Minister must answer whether a “change in circumstances” is limited to formal legal developments, such as bankruptcy, a criminal conviction, or something as small as a parking fine. I hope not the latter. Could the definition extend to more subjective matters such as personal, reputational issues, media allegations, or ongoing investigations? If so, I fear that the Government and their regulator would be on very shaky ground, not just because clubs would find themselves in the near-impossible position of having to second-guess what the regulator might later deem to be relevant, even when no formal wrongdoing has occurred, but because it would open up the regulator to spates of judicial reviews. As we see already, the wealthiest clubs would be able to hire the best lawyers, and those clubs that are already struggling would be subject to the personal diktats of the chairman of the Government’s regulator. That is not a sustainable, appropriate or moral way to regulate, and it is totally incompatible with the principle of legal certainty that should underpin any new statutory regime.
Furthermore, clause 33 requires that the Government be notified
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
after a change has occurred. Again, the language is open to wide interpretation. What is “reasonably practicable” for a large Premier League club with extensive legal support may be entirely different for a National League side with minimal back office capacity. We must ensure that smaller clubs are not disproportionately penalised because they lack the administrative infrastructure to track and report such changes with the same immediacy as those international brands that sit atop the English football pyramid. We must also ask whether the sanctions for failing to report, which could be very serious, potentially leading to licence revocation, are proportionate to each breach. Clubs cannot become the regulator’s enforcement arm, expected to carry out continuous due diligence on their own officers and owners, with the threat of regulatory action hanging over them if they get it wrong.
Clause 33 touches on a sensitive area: the relationship between clubs and their owners, and the role of the state in policing suitability. It is right to expect clubs to act responsibly and keep the regulator informed, but the duty must be clear, proportionate and fairly enforced to avoid lower-level staff being put in extremely difficult situations. We do not want to create a culture of regulatory paranoia, where clubs feel compelled to notify the Government’s regulator of every minor development just in case it is later deemed relevant, nor do we want smaller clubs punished for failing to meet standards that are de facto only achievable for the top tier. The Government must ensure that the clause is not a trapdoor for arbitrary enforcement, and that it supports predictability, stability and confidence in the regulatory framework. We understand the underlying principle, but we will continue to press the Minister to ensure the practical operation of the clause does not give rise to legal ambiguity, unjust outcomes or unaccountable discretion.
Before moving on, I have a number of questions on clause 33. Could the Minister clarify what sorts of events would qualify as a “change in circumstances” under clause 33? Will guidance be issued by the football regulator to ensure consistent interpretation? Will the definition be limited to formal, objective legal changes? What level of evidence or certainty will clubs be expected to have before reporting a change? Will clubs be required to report allegations or media speculation? Will the football regulator consider good-faith failures to notify or take a strict liability approach? How will the regulator account for differences in club size, structure and resourcing when judging what is “reasonably practicable”? Will there be any threshold or scaling in terms of compliance expectations for clubs of differing means?
What appeal or review mechanisms will be available to a club if the football regulator finds that it failed to notify as required? Will there be a formal process for representations or challenge before any enforcement action is taken? How does the clause interact with the broader principles of legal privilege and privacy? Will clubs be expected to disclose internal HR issues or ongoing internal investigations, even if there is no conclusion yet? Have the Government assessed whether the clause is compatible with UEFA and FIFA expectations of non-interference in the running of football clubs? I had a written response from the Minister this morning regarding her last meeting with UEFA and FIFA, which was 1 November. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, so we are still concerned about the broader point regarding UEFA. I would appreciate a response to that point today.
Moving on to clause 34, it empowers the football regulator to determine whether an incumbent individual owner meets the fitness criteria or has wealth associated with serious criminal conduct, if the regulator has information that raises grounds for concern. It requires the regulator to inform the owner and club before making a determination and then notify them of the outcome. If passed, more than 100 English football clubs will be subject to the regulation. It is not specified in the Bill what level of information would raise grounds for concern regarding incumbent owners. If the bar is set too low, the regulator may be immediately burdened by reviewing multiple existing owners, causing unease in English football. What level of information is required to qualify as grounds for concern? There is also no time limit for the regulator to make its assessment, so how will the regulator ensure that the threat does not needlessly hang over existing owners?
Clause 35 empowers the football regulator to determine whether an incumbent officer meets the fitness criteria if the regulator has information that raises grounds for concern. It requires the regulator to inform the owner and club before making a determination and then notify them of the outcome. As I said regarding the previous clause, more than 100 English football clubs will be regulated if the Bill passes. It is not specified in the Bill what level of information would raise grounds for concern regarding officers, of which there are even more to consider. If the bar is set too low, the regulator may be immediately burdened by the need to review multiple existing officers for each club. I ask the Minister again: what level of information will be required to qualify as grounds for concern? There is also no time limit for the regulator to make its assessment, so how will it ensure that this threat does not needlessly hang over existing officers?
Lastly—you will be pleased to know, Mr Turner—clause 36 requires the football regulator to give advance notification to an incumbent owner or officer if it is minded to find them unsuitable. Before making a final decision, the clause requires the person and club in question to be allowed to make representations, which must then be taken into account. The clause stipulates that the regulator must inform incumbent owners and officers only that it is minded to find them unsuitable, not of the reasons why. Given the vital importance of these representations, should there not be a requirement for the regulator to disclose the reasons to the person and club so that they can fully engage? I would appreciate the Minister picking up the point about the reasons, because it is important.
There is a broader point here about clubs that may be listed on the open market. My understanding of this clause is that, before a final decision is taken, the club would effectively become an insider from a trading perspective. It will be interesting to see how the Government will seek to manage that risk in terms of financial compliance, given that an issue with a particular owner or officer could have significant financial implications for a club and therefore potentially leave individuals inside that loop at risk of being involved with inside information from a dealing perspective. As we all know, if anyone is found to be in breach of inside information, it has very serious consequences. It will be interesting to see how the mechanism in this clause to inform clubs and individuals first will work with the broader notifications in the market where clubs are listed.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin with the subject of UEFA. Once again, I can reassure the shadow Minister that UEFA is content with the Bill as drafted. He will note that, in answer to his written question, I detailed my last meeting with UEFA, which was after the Bill was published, and said that we continue to engage with officials on a regular basis.
The shadow Minister asked a long list of questions to which I will respond in writing to ensure accuracy, as I did not get a chance to note them down. We have spoken about some of the points he touched on around appeals and enforcement and will come on to debate them in further detail.
I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the fact that, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, the bar is set differently for existing and new owners. I outlined points on new owners, grounds to suspect, incumbent owners, the balance of probabilities and the higher bar given existing owners’ property rights.
The shadow Minister also asked a number of questions on what information would be relevant. A parking ticket, certainly, would not be relevant, but serious legal issues or an investigation or action by a regulator—things of that nature—would be relevant. The regulator will not immediately test information in every case just because it comes in. It will make its own decision about whether the information reaches a high enough threshold for it to take action.
Information that gives the regulator grounds for concern could come in lots of forms. It does not need to be new information, as I outlined in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, but it has to call into question whether the individual is still suitable to be an owner or officer of a club. The information may be relevant if the club gets into difficulty or fails to comply with the regime. Information that is in the public domain or held by external organisations about incumbent owners could be considered grounds for concern to test an individual. It will be up to the regulator to decide whether the information meets the threshold for the incumbent to be tested.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 34 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)
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
USAID Funding Pause
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the USAID funding pause and its impact on UK international development.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank everyone who has come this morning either to participate or to observe. Although a decision about an American Government Department’s funding may seem distant in geography, it is dangerously close in consequence. The recent cuts to the United States Agency for International Development—USAID —by President Trump on his first day in office pose a grave risk to millions of people around the world, as well as to global stability. I believe they are either a mistake and a blunder, or a cruel and cynical ploy for popularity that will result in harm and suffering for the poorest on the planet.
The implications for our aid programme are threefold. First, the UK has effectively lost a key partner in aid, and one with which we have done great work in the past. Secondly, the sheer scale of the USAID cuts means that the gaps in funding cannot be filled by other donors, especially as almost all Governments, including our own, are now following the US example and reducing their aid spend to put more into their militaries. Thirdly, it could be argued that we, and indeed the world, should have seen this coming; we had become too reliant on the USA.
Having said that, I find it indefensible for the UK to follow suit and cut aid in an attempt to raise funds for increasing defence spend.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making some compelling points. Does he agree that the crucial point is that if Britain retreats from our role as a leader in international development, we not only undermine our unique soft power but leave vital regions exposed, ceding ground to the increasing assertiveness of hostile powers and geopolitical rivals?
Brian Mathew
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover many of those points. I find the cut totally indefensible and counterproductive. Apart from the soft power that our aid programme offers, it is a betrayal of principles we hold dear: reducing poverty and assuring global security.
On a personal note, aid cuts hit close to home for me. For much of my career I have worked in international aid, primarily in water, sanitation and hygiene, working to give people across Africa and the developing world access to clean drinking water, safe sanitation and good hygiene. Those simple things are vital to health, survival and prosperity.
According to WaterAid, the UK’s annual budget for WASH has already been cut by approximately 82%, from a high of £206 million per year down to a critical low of just £37 million a year in 2022. Further cuts are likely to this most vital of sectors. Such cuts will hardly dissuade potential refugees from coming to our shores; they may even drive those refugees towards us if life becomes increasingly intolerable as a result of climate change, war and famine.
One impact of USAID cuts is growing hunger. Globally, almost 50% of all deaths among children under five are attributed to malnutrition. The USAID-funded famine early warning system—FEWS NET—the gold standard for monitoring and predicting food insecurity, went offline in January because of Trump’s cuts, leaving organisations without a key source of guidance on where and when to deploy humanitarian aid. At the same time, other USAID cuts have led to feeding programmes themselves coming to an abrupt end. For example, therapeutic feeding centres in Nigeria have been closed, as have community-run kitchens in Sudan, at a time when famine threatens millions in that country. Meanwhile, thousands in Haiti have lost access to nutritional support. We are told that USAID emergency food rations are now rotting in warehouses.
The supply of HIV treatments and medication has been severely disrupted. The UNAIDS executive director has warned that if funding is not replaced, an additional 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths are expected over the next four years. We were likewise warned by a senior World Health Organisation staff member during the recent International Development Committee visit to Geneva that, with AIDS again running rampant, it is likely that drug-resistant variants of tuberculosis will now multiply and become a risk to us all, even in the developed north.
When healthcare systems are hit, sexual and reproductive health is often one of the first casualties.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I have been in contact with the International Rescue Committee, my former employer, about the impact that the USAID cuts will have on it. It is estimated that the cuts to that agency alone will mean that 280,000 people in Yemen will lose access to primary care, mental healthcare and reproductive healthcare, and 3,000 people in Lebanon will be left without education. That is devastating not just in terms of the humanitarian impact; we need to think about it in terms of our own stability and security. It means diseases left unchecked, which cross borders and become pandemics, and it means young people left without education and opportunity and at risk of further marginalisation and radicalisation. Does he agree with that analysis?
Brian Mathew
I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I will continue with more figures that emphasise those points.
During the 90-day freeze, an estimated 11.7 million women and girls have been denied modern contraceptive care. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that that will lead to 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and 8,340 women and girls dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the impact that the cuts will have on women and girls. Does he agree that, as well as continuing to support women and girls through aid from this country, we must stand up for women’s and girls’ rights internationally? We have seen them rolled back in the past. That is why it is so important that we continue to do what we can to stand up for women, for example in Afghanistan, where their rights are being eroded every single day.
Brian Mathew
I completely agree with the hon. Member. An ActionAid project in Zambia safeguarding women from sexual exploitation was forced to close almost overnight.
Oxfam says that, thanks to the cuts to USAID, 95 million people could lose access to basic healthcare, potentially leading to 3 million preventable deaths a year, and 23 million children could lose access to education. When services collapse and diseases can spread unchecked, people lose hope, and they do not stay put. Migration pressures rise, conflicts hit new boiling points and markets react. As covid taught us all too well, deadly viruses such as Marburg and Ebola could leap from remote villages to our high streets in a matter of weeks, especially when the staff to deal with them have been given stop orders and removed from frontline duty.
We are already seeing other powers whose interests do not align with ours begin to fill the gaps left by USAID. China and Russia are expanding their influence in regions where western credibility is weakening. Just last week, some of us on the IDC heard from an official in the Burma/Myanmar freedom movement that USAID’s withdrawal has happened at the same time as China has made quick inroads to prop up the military and curry influence in its efforts to get hold of rare earth minerals from that troubled country.
The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a force for good in the world. Our work and leadership with British aid has not only saved lives but championed the best of our British values: fairness, the rule of law, health, education and opportunity across the globe. That is soft power in its most tangible form, and it is worth its weight in gold—and, more importantly, in lives and livelihoods. Sadly, we have made our own aid cuts recently, from the 0.7% GNI commitment down to 0.5% and then 0.3%. The reality is that with so much being spent on hotels for asylum seekers, instead of allowing them to work and pay their way while their status is determined, as little as 1% of UK GNI is now being spent on genuine aid.
We know what to do. We know that investing in WASH makes sense. We know that investing in girls’ education reduces child marriage, improves economic outcomes and reduces inequality. We know that investing in pandemic preparedness, vaccine infrastructure and vaccine research protects not just vulnerable people around the world, but our NHS and public health here at home. International development is therefore smart policy. It reduces the risks that we would otherwise spend billions more to contain. What should we do? We must reaffirm our commitment to restoring the 0.7% target and publicly commit not to just the rhetoric of aid, but to actually doing it—and doing it well.
The withdrawal of USAID has created a moment of reckoning; the world is watching and the vulnerable are waiting. I will end by paraphrasing President John F. Kennedy in his special message to Congress on foreign aid on 22 March 1961. We are aware of our obligations to the sick, the poor and the hungry, wherever they may live. It will both befit and benefit us to take this step boldly, on which will depend substantially the kind of world in which we and our children shall live. It is time for us to stand up and be counted.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. It looks like all Members will get to speak if they stick to six or seven minutes.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate, which is a timely one, given that we are approaching 20 years since the Gleneagles summit held in Scotland in 2005. Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar Square calling on us to make poverty history. World leaders gathered in Gleneagles in 2005, and they rose to the challenge, cancelling debt for some of the world’s poorest countries and boosting aid.
In 2025, aid and development are firmly in the spotlight, but for very different reasons and in a very different context. While this debate is focused on the impact of USAID funding cuts, there is no doubt that those cuts will have a seismic impact on the landscape globally, and on our own approach to development. The US is the world’s largest aid donor, providing around 20% of all aid from the 32 members of the OECD. In February, we announced the very difficult decision that UK aid would be cut to boost defence spending.
While I welcome the uplift in defence spending, for people such as me and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes who have worked in development for many years, it was a painful decision. However, it is important to emphasise the difference between the decisions made in the United States and those made in the UK. While I will not comment too much on the rationales for different Governments’ decisions, the UK Government have been clear that this was not an ideological decision but one driven by financial pressures. I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will assure us, that there is a commitment to continuing to develop aid.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the question of whether the Government’s decision was driven by financial motivations, does the hon. Member agree that whether it is 0.7% or 0.3%, the key is that UK GDP must rise, as her own Chancellor has said? If our economy shrinks, the 0.7% figure becomes almost irrelevant because it is 0.7% of a much smaller budget. All that matters overseas is the amount of cash they get, not the percentage of our domestic product, so we must drive the economy first before we try to deliver the mechanism that I am sure most of us are in favour of.
Alice Macdonald
The hon. Member is right; this is an internationally agreed percentage of gross national income, but too many countries have not met that target. As has been mentioned, some countries are stepping back, so it is important to be clear that we will keep our commitment to getting back to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. However, in this new reality, we must ensure that our aid delivers maximum impact where it is spent, that we take actions to mitigate the effect of these cuts and that we keep the commitment to return to 0.7% in the long term.
In that spirit, I will focus on five key areas where the Government should act. First, they must cut in-donor refugee costs. As many Members know, we spend a significant portion of our current aid budget in the UK on those costs, which were approximately £4 billion in 2023. That trend started under the previous Conservative Government—who also left us with huge backlogs in the asylum system—and I know that this Government are determined to tackle it. We have seen some progress in bringing down those costs, and provisional estimates suggest that they were £2.8 billion in 2024, but we need to continue that trajectory with a clear timeline and a commitment across Departments to get them down.
Secondly, we must maximise the impact of our aid. It is important that we align with the “leave no one behind” principle in the 2015 sustainable development goals. I would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister for International Development in the other place, because there are difficult decisions to be made, as members of the International Development Committee recently heard. It is important that Members of Parliament, including Back Benchers, clearly see the criteria and the vision against which those decisions are being made.
The “leave no one behind” principle must, as I alluded to earlier, include a focus on women and girls. It is clear that the USAID cuts will have a big impact in that area. In 2023, the US was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and family planning. Under the Conservative Government’s last round of cuts to the aid budget, we saw that women and girls were disproportionately affected, so it is important that does not happen again. I recently asked the Minister for Europe in the main Chamber whether women and girls would remain “at the heart” of our policy, and he assured me that they would.
At the International Development Committee, the Minister for International Development in the other place assured us that although there would be less money for women and girls in education, it would be mainstreamed across all the priorities. Can the Minister elaborate on how we will ensure that they are prioritised and, importantly, how we will continue to support women’s rights organisations? As UN Women has shown recently, there has been a detrimental impact, with many such organisations at risk of having to close their doors altogether. When we invest in women and girls, we get better outcomes, not only for those countries but for ourselves.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The UN has warned us that more than half of frontline, women-led organisations could shut down within six months due to global aid cuts. That is not just a funding crisis; it is a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring funding to those groups must be a priority if we are to prevent the complete collapse of women’s services in conflict zones?
Alice Macdonald
I fully agree. We have had programmes, such as the Equality Fund, where we have been clear on the importance of women’s rights-led organisations. I have met many women’s rights defenders of all ages who are doing amazing work. We must continue to back them and listen to them, because they know what is best in the context in which they work.
I am sure other Members will speak to the importance of investing in multilateral efforts, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund, which I also want to back. Those funds have a proven return on investment for the UK taxpayer. The World Bank’s International Development Association fund and the African Development Fund also have important roles to play in alleviating poverty, and we have been big backers of those in the past.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations, I would also like to underline the value of the United Nations. There is, of course, space for reform, and I am sure we are all aware of some of the flaws in the system, but it is a unique vehicle for coming together as a world to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face and to increase the value of our aid.
We must also look beyond aid to leverage other forms of financing, many of which we could leverage without cost to the taxpayer. As the Independent Commission for Aid Impact pointed out, foreign direct investment, remittances and other forms dwarf the overall aid budget, so I hope the UK will continue to lead on innovative financing. That includes how we can recycle International Monetary Fund special drawing rights. In 2020, we received an allocation of £19 billion from the IMF as part of the response to covid. We could re-channel that to provide zero-interest finance to low-income countries or through multilateral development banks. We could also put idle foreign reserves into action. A small portion of the UK’s largely idle exchange equalisation account could be used to support low-income countries.
The last Labour Government led on debt relief. I was proud of what we did at Gleneagles to lead those efforts. We must do so again, given that debt payments for low-income countries are at their highest for 30 years, with 32 African countries spending more on servicing their external debt than on healthcare. Given that 90% of low-income countries’ debt is governed by English law, the UK could do a lot to bring private creditors to the table to get the best possible deals. I hope the Minister can set out what we are doing in that regard, especially as we approach the conference on financing for development in Seville in just a few weeks’ time.
Finally, more broadly, we need a reset on aid and development. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we want to move to an approach founded on partnership, not paternalism, which puts the countries that have traditionally been recipients of aid in the driving seat. We have seen cases in the past. Indonesia, for example, used to be a recipient of Gavi funding but is now giving money itself. We need to look at success stories and say why they matter not only for tackling poverty but for increasing prosperity and tackling inequality, including in our own country. I see our development work as insurance; it is a downpayment for the long term to tackle some of the upstream drivers of migration.
I hope that we will continue to lead internationally, as we are domestically, on using science, innovation and technology to its best effect. Innovators, such as the John Innes Centre in the constituency next to mine, are doing amazing work to tackle hunger and climate change, and we must back those efforts to look at how we can support developing countries abroad.
We all know that tough decisions are having to be made in the extraordinary times in which we live, but I know that this Government are internationalists. I believe that our party will continue to lead and use all the levers at our disposal to tackle poverty and inequality wherever they are found.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I remind Members to stick to the time limit as much as they can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for leading the debate. He and I have talked often about his previous job before he came here. I put on the record my thanks to him for what he did. His heart is in this debate, as was clear in his comments. This is a huge issue: since Trump signed the initial executive order in January, there has been a moral obligation on countries like ours to do our best to pick up what may be lost in terms of humanitarian safety, so it is great to be here to discuss that impact.
The United States is the world’s largest aid donor, providing 20% of all aid. In addition, in 2023 it was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and humanitarian aid. In March 2025, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stated that 82% of all USAID programmes would be ended. I will try to be respectful, but I have to say that if the richest country in the world cuts back on aid to that extent, it reflects badly on that country; I think there is something wrong there.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I are Christians, and we tithe our money so 10% of our income goes to charities and Christian work. We are not better than anybody else— I make that quite clear—but we do that because we feel we are morally supposed to. The reflection on the USAID programme is absolutely unbelievable and incomprehensible for a country with so much money.
I was telling my hon. Friend about a conversation between two American ladies—I do not know who they were—that I overheard in my hotel in Waterloo this morning. I heard one say to the other, “Oh, by the way, I had to get my leg done and it cost $100,000.” I nearly spilt my coffee on the floor—$100,000 and there was not another word about it. The US as a country has an obligation to others across the world, and it needs to play its part. I say that with respect and in all honesty.
The decisions that began in January have ultimately raised concerns about the continuity of global health and developmental support work. As my party’s health spokesman, my interest is piqued by the potential for humanitarian and health aid to be ultimately affected as a result. I understand that the Government have made some exceptions with waivers, but hundreds of thousands of people will undoubtedly be impacted because of those decisions.
According to The Independent, 912,730 women per week are being denied contraception. HIV vaccine trials in South Africa have been halted. Food and shelter programmes in refugee camps have been reduced or stopped early. US withdrawal has led to an increase in influence from outside actors such as China—let us beware China using its money to fill the space and therefore get what it wants. Up to half a million children could be at risk of outbreaks of malaria and cholera, which can be prevented in normal circumstances with aid.
Not only are such decisions impacting people across the globe, but closer to home the staff are ultimately out of employment as well. There is a disregard for the number of jobs that it could impact. The Minister has compassion and interest in this issue, and I do not think any of us will be disappointed in her response to our requests. In any discussions that she and the Government have with the US on this matter, the UK must work with other countries to meet development goals and ensure that those struggling across the globe are not left with nothing.
The UK has a stellar reputation for supporting countries facing poverty. In Northern Ireland we have several charities, non-governmental organisations and churches— I work with them all the time in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards—that are pivotal in supporting people in poverty. Charities such as Challenge Ministries, Mission Africa, Self Help Africa and Children in Crossfire come out of the churches and what they do. Their continued efforts reflect our commitment to supporting the nations who need help, and we must ensure that to some extent we continue to do that in the long term.
Mr Campbell
On the NGOs and the other groups helping people at home, the House of Commons Library summary indicates that over a quarter of UK aid has been spend on refugees based in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be better deployed overseas to try to assist the economies of developing countries, because of the concern about massive immigration into the UK? If those economies were helped and assisted, it would do more to reduce the numbers of people coming to the UK and offset the problems that we occasionally see on our streets.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments about what we should do are incredibly wise, because there would be benefits. Sometimes the full appreciation of that is not known.
I was at a Samaritan’s Purse charity event last Friday in my constituency, where I was quite critical of USAID. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, whose missionary work I am aware of, is also working with Samaritan’s Purse. Such people in my constituency and elsewhere fill the gap where the aid falls down. We owe a great debt to those NGOs, church groups, missionary organisations and the likes of Samaritan’s Purse for what they do and how they respond to emergencies, whether they are floods, earthquakes, war or whatever.
To conclude, both Governments have said in the past that more needs to be done to help low-income countries raise their own funds for development and to address climate change, especially in relation to poverty reduction. We should be proud as a nation of what we have done, while also encouraging our counterparts in the US to ensure that we do what we can to support as a collective.
I agree that every pound or dollar spent must not be wasted on political gesturing and must be spent well, but we must not stop spending altogether. That is my fear about USAID, because we have a moral obligation. I know that our US counterparts can work with us to find worthwhile projects, cut the political posturing and make a global difference, which is what we all need to do.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse; it is a privilege to have you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today.
Internationalism is at the heart of the Labour movement. When it comes to solidarity with the oppressed and victims of injustice, truly there are no borders. I want to touch on some recurring themes. The first is the ongoing dominance of Washington DC in our foreign policy. There is no doubt that the US continues to heavily influence our international approach. The American President challenged European nations to increase their defence spending at the same time as he cut USAID. The British people we serve deserve better than our nation’s meek obedience to Washington DC. Human rights, upholding and following international law, and using what global influence we have for peace and security should be at the forefront of our thinking and action.
The ripple effect of outside influence impacts our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy. A politician talking about “tough choices” almost always means that the poorest, the disadvantaged and the most vulnerable are at the wrong end of whatever the decisions are, whether at home or abroad. Domestically, the proposed cuts to welfare mean that disabled people are facing a life of forever poverty. With reductions in benefits and cost of living increases, on top of the added financial pressures involved in being disabled, it is accurate to say that, for many, the cuts would be lethal.
A deadly fate also awaits people in some of the most dangerous, volatile and destitute countries that rely on our overseas aid just to survive. Human rights and humanitarian law are essential for global security, and those essentials are under serious threat.
Helen Maguire
On global security, the Mines Advisory Group, a leading mine NGO, has been forced to shut down its operations in Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso and Mauritania and scale back in Iraq, Senegal, South Sudan and Sri Lanka because of USAID cuts. This is not the moment to retreat. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK must ensure sustained funding for humanitarian mine action to keep civilians safe and support post-conflict recovery?
Brian Leishman
Yes, the hon. Member has my absolute agreement.
In all honesty, the UK is contributing to the growing danger that I described. We continue to sell arms to human rights-abusing states and further compound that awful act by cutting overseas development aid, which prevents conflict, builds peace, increases global security and saves and transforms lives. I utterly reject the narrative that for defence spending to be increased, overseas development aid has to be cut. Pushing that type of politics is an example of dividing people, sowing discord and creating disharmony and suspicion—creating a society that is dog eat dog and to hell with your neighbour.
Cutting overseas aid is not only immoral but a completely false economy, because our security at home is made stronger when the security of others is guaranteed abroad. For example, on International Women’s Day earlier this year, Liberation organised for women from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Western Sahara to come to Westminster. Those women shared personal stories of hunger, illness, sexual exploitation and intimidation, and persecution. Our overseas aid helps to provide safety from those awful circumstances. I think we all agree that all politics is personal—with nothing more so than the stories those women shared with parliamentarians that evening.
Before finishing, I want to touch again on what I said about internationalism. The fight against inequality must be tackled here and across the world. Austerity and cuts, whether at home or abroad, should be rejected. Our Foreign Office must have a coherent, joined-up approach. It is our country’s duty to respond to the world’s crises, make humanitarian aid available, and promote peace and global security. My only ask of the Minister is that she take that message back to the Secretary of State.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare my interest as co-chair of both the APPG on nutrition for development and the APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health.
This is a period of great uncertainty, not just because of what has happened in the US, but because of what is happening in the UK. Perhaps this debate is a couple of days early, because when the new Minister for International Development, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, appeared before the International Development Committee, everything was predicated on the spending review. Indeed, the Committee had to send back the Government’s response to our inquiry on hunger and sustainable development goal 2 because there was no substance in the reply, since everything was predicated on the outcome of the spending review.
I hope that tomorrow we will get certainty. I do not expect the Minister to be able to advance anything specific today, but it is important that we have that certainty, because uncertainty is one of the worst features affecting our ability to plan and to combat the issues that we face globally. Obviously, the US has contributed enormously to that uncertainty. It is still not clear what is happening in the US, and that is why I welcome the fact that the International Development Committee will soon visit Washington and New York. It will be a fact-finding visit, so that we can ascertain exactly what the approach is, and whether Mr Musk’s departure means anything for how these matters will be dealt with.
I do not want to dwell too much on regret about the American situation. I think that we have to move on, as others have said, to a new debate about the future model of development. The Government, through the Minister for International Development, have indicated that that is their view, but again, there have not been many clues as to exactly what that might mean. We have heard about a realignment of existing multilateral organisations; it is not clear to me what that means. What I am clear on is that the UK should continue to contribute significantly to Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid, because those are multilateral organisations that deliver on their own specific objectives but also provide a backbone for health services in many poorer countries. Without those interventions, there would not be a health service being offered at all, so it is vital that we continue.
Cutting mid-way through programmes is always chaotic. One of the most shocking things that I heard in recent evidence to the International Development Committee was about a US cut during the overwhelming of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We heard that the radio system, which was operated by volunteers, had to be switched off during that attack. That meant that people could not hear where the attack was coming from and where to go to be safe. I think that everybody who heard that evidence, from the guy who had to do that, understood how hard it was—and it was the direct consequence of a cut.
I want to focus on nutrition and give some key facts. A billion women and girls suffer from malnutrition, which impacts their health, productivity and economic futures. Malnutrition is a leading killer, responsible for one in five maternal deaths and nearly half of child deaths under the age of five. Malnutrition costs the global economy more than $1.6 trillion annually in lost productivity and potential. US aid cuts could lead to 1 million children with severe and acute malnutrition losing access to treatment annually. But it can be—and it has been—different. We know that for every $1 invested, $23 is returned to the local economy. Investing in nutrition is not charity, and it is not even the moral thing to do; it is a strategic decision and investment, and the UK, US and other funders should continue to do it.
The UK Government are being asked to invest £50 million in the child nutrition fund. The UK has historically been a leader in the funding of child nutrition interventions. In both 2022 and 2023, the UK committed £6 million to the fund, which has high-impact, cost-effective malnutrition solutions. With the funding crisis caused by US cuts, the ask is now £50 million.
I hope that on the IDC’s visit to the US, we will find out more about what is happening with HIV/AIDS, because there are competing suggestions about whether the US will return to funding. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) alluded to women and girls; one of the most important messages we have to get across is that in sub-Saharan Africa, it is women and girls who are most affected by HIV, and it is important to continue funding there.
I also agree with the hon. Member about the importance of science and innovation as we move forward in this new development world. I had the opportunity to visit the John Innes Centre outside Norwich, as well as Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, where a huge amount of research is going ahead. The research and scientific leadership that the UK can offer might be the replacement for the financial leadership we offered in the past.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing the debate. The International Development Committee is due in a couple of weeks—if our visas are approved—to go to the US and have some of these discussions. It will be interesting to see what is said. I do not know whether I need to declare this as an interest, but I am the Labour party representative on the Progressive Alliance; our sister party is the Democratic party, and I campaigned for it in the 2012 election. I think it is obvious that my view is that we should not have the current US Administration, and their decision to slash the US aid budget was profound and devastating.
Turning to the UK context, as someone who has spent their entire career in the charity sector, I was heartbroken by the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, but it is important for the record to lay out some of the context for that decision. We inherited a horrific economy, the majority of the aid budget—a huge amount of that money—was going on asylum spend in hotels, and we faced a world in which Ukraine had been invaded by Putin and his forces. While I regret the decision to cut aid, it was taken in that terrible context, and because of the vital need to increase defence spending to 2.5%.
Why was the economy in such a state? It was because of the devastating Truss mini-Budget. Aid had already been reduced to 0.5% because of the decision that Sunak had taken, and Boris Johnson had abolished a world-leading Government Department. In addition, why did Russia invade? It was because—I should say that I do not mean this as a criticism of the last Government—the west collectively failed to stand up to Putin. We allowed him and Assad to do what they wanted in Syria; we took no action when Assad unleashed chemical weapons on his own people. Putin invaded Crimea with near impunity in 2014, and of course we had attacks on UK soil, including the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.
David Taylor
I will not, because I want to make a point; I find the moralising tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) a bit much. The reason the last Government were able to do what they did—slashing the aid budget, abolishing the Department for International Development and wrecking the economy—was that we have never had a weaker Opposition than we did when the hard left was sadly in charge of my party. Putin was emboldened, in part, by the hard left’s constant appeasement and apologism for the things he was doing, their downplaying of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and their suggestion that we send the sample from Salisbury back to Putin to test whether or not he was responsible.
David Taylor
No, I will not, because I find the moralising tone completely infuriating. Having put that on record, I turn to the matter at hand: the horrible situation that we are in. I note with respect that other hon. Members have mentioned causes that they deeply care about, and I care about those causes—
Mike Martin
If we put aside the internecine warfare of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about a retreat from the world. Retreating from the world as the west, the UK or the US, opens the door to creating more problems, and then we retreat further. Would he argue that that is what we are doing—vacating the field to our opponents?
David Taylor
I do not believe that is the case, because I believe the Minister is going to set out the ways in which we are still taking our place on the world stage, but I hear the hon. Member’s concern.
Hon. Members in this Chamber have passionately advocated for causes that they care deeply about. I respect that, especially the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes and his passionate plea for WASH. I could talk about a number of causes important to me, but what is most important is that we increase the size of the pie. For that reason, I have been working constructively with other Members of the House to put suggestions to the Government for how, given the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, we could look at other forms of development finance.
In the interests of time, I will not go over the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made about asylum seekers, remittances, special drawing rights, the exchange equalisation account and debt relief, but I will add to that list the need to release the Chelsea money as soon as possible. The Government announced recently that they are looking to take further action against Roman Abramovich. If that money is released into Ukraine, given that we have essentially said that we will protect aid spending in Ukraine, I hope that additional money can replace official development assistance going in, so that that ODA money can then support programmes in other countries.
We also have an issue with British International Investment. To be clear, BII does good things, but there is no need for additional capitalisation out of the 0.3% that we have, given that investments in assets can be realised. Finally, I highlight the international finance facility for immunisation, which is a way to leverage extra funding. We are urging the Government to look at other ways to do that in other contexts. There is already an international finance facility for education, and by using such facilities we can leverage funds times 10. Given the various summits that are coming up, including the financing for development conference that my hon. Friend mentioned, I urge the Government to look at those options, and to think innovatively about the additional finance that we can leverage to help to support the poorest people in the world.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew)—who cut his teeth in the continent and the country in which I was born, Malawi—for securing this important debate.
We are seeing the dismantling of the world order that we created. I sincerely believe that we stand at a crossroads of not just policy, but principle. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on punching above its weight, not just militarily, but with moral leadership. Having said that, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), it was Tony Blair—the “hard left”—who said that Putin should have a seat at the table and gave him a pair of silver 10 Downing Street cufflinks.
With our moral leadership, through decades of smart and targeted overseas aid, we have saved lives and shaped the world in our image—an image that is just, resilient and humane. The decision that we have made to cut overseas aid by £6 billion is lowering our commitment, such that overseas aid will be at its lowest level in 25 years. That not only betrays the world’s most vulnerable people; it betrays us. It betrays who we are and what we stand for.
Let us be clear: aid is not just about generosity. We all know that. It is also about foresight. I am an optometrist, and this decision is extremely myopic. Aid is about security for us in the long term. It is about stability and recognising that the surest way to keep disease, conflict and extremism from reaching our shores is to invest in preventing them, rather than reacting in panic when they emerge. In my opinion, cutting aid while increasing defence spending is putting the cart before the horse. How can we talk about protecting our nation while we tear down the very programmes that prevent wars, contain pandemics—have we already forgotten covid?—and stabilise fragile regions?
These aid cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are unprotected lives, including children who are unprotected because they are unvaccinated, whose futures will be erased. For example, over the past four years our support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped to immunise 1 billion children. Now that we are reducing the funds for aid, we risk reversing decades of progress. Measles, polio, typhoid—these are not diseases of the past. They are clawing their way back and our retreat invites them in. We have seen what our aid can do. In just two years, the Reach Initiative helped to boost immunisation rates in conflict zones from 16% to 96%, reaching more than 9 million children. Are we now to abandon those children in the name of “sharpening focus”?
The UK’s aid has helped to provide antiretroviral therapy to 23 million people, distributed 133 million malaria nets and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), educated more than 1 million girls in the world’s hardest places. Are we about to cut this system to meet a political target or to mimic a short-sighted policy from across the Atlantic?
Aid fosters growth over time. Since 1960, the International Development Association has helped 36 countries through loans and grants; 19 of them have seen economic development to such a degree that they are now giving money to the IDA rather than receiving it.
Let us not kid ourselves. This aid cut is not about leadership; to me, it looks like retreat. While following the USA in gutting aid programmes might seem politically expedient, it is morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. This policy will stoke the very fires that we seek to extinguish—displacement, disease and extremism—and send their embers across the globe. And what of our standing on the world stage? Are we prepared to go from aid superpower to spectator, and to shrug while global poverty, education and health collapse under the weight of our absence? While we pull back, authoritarian regimes are—as we speak—filling the void with their influence, their ideologies and their terms. I believe that we should increase our investment in global health security, not scale it back. Our aid was not charity, in a world still reeling from covid and now facing new disease outbreaks; it was, in fact, an insurance policy against global collapse.
Now is not a time for retreat; it is a time for us to lead, with compassion, clarity and courage. We must not allow short-term politics to cause long-term catastrophe. We must restore our commitment to giving 0.7% of GNI, reassert our leadership in education in particular, global health and crisis response, and protect not just lives overseas, but the future of our nation and the values that we claim to defend.
We are not just donors; we are architects of a safer and more stable world. Let us not dismantle what we have built.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is indeed an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this important debate.
Since the new US Administration took office in January, President Trump and Elon Musk have gutted USAID—the world’s foremost dispenser of humanitarian funding and expertise, through which America saved the lives of many of the world’s poorest people. Trump’s budget proposals to Congress for the coming fiscal year reduce foreign assistance spend by almost 85%, all while the need for it increases. In a deadly year, when 120 armed conflicts raging across the globe, the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity has nearly tripled in six years, from 135 million in 2019 to 340 million today. The nation that previously built development’s architecture has largely disappeared almost overnight. There is an urgent need for someone to step up and assume the convening and facilitating role that America once played. Many looked to Britain, and in that month, when we all held our breath, we were blindsided instead by this Labour Government cutting development spending to its lowest level this century.
It is difficult to fully comprehend the scale of the cuts to USAID or their impact. In 2024, America spent roughly $70 billion on international development. Its contribution represented 40% of all humanitarian aid recorded that year. But it is not just the money. Every other country, international NGO and development body relies on the humanitarian architecture that America built and supported. It was America that funded much of the most valuable data collection, which determined where other countries directed their resources. NGOs I have spoken to explained how American-funded analysis often provided the early warning system for looming hunger crises. Frequently it was money from the Americans that paid the administrative costs and overheads of NGOs working on the ground. That has been dismantled.
The world is already paying a heavy price for Trump’s and Musk’s decision to break American development leadership. Since the cuts, Boston University has been running a mathematical model of their likely toll. The model estimates that more than 300,000 people have died already, two thirds of them children. Every hour, the model believes, around another 100 people die. One can watch the number tick up almost in real time. A leaked memo originating with USAID estimated that the cuts would result in 200,000 children each year being paralysed by polio, that 1 million cases of severe acute malnutrition, which often results in death, would go untreated and that malaria would claim an additional 166,000 lives. There is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. Millions of the world’s poorest people, including the poorest children, have lost lifesaving medical care because of those cuts.
Perhaps the heaviest blow of all has fallen upon the global effort to fight HIV and AIDS. The President’s emergency plan for AIDS relief, credited with saving 26 million lives in the last two decades, received a 90-day stop work order in January. The Trump Administration have now asked Congress to claw back money, some already allocated to PEPFAR. As a result, the global HIV response has been severely disrupted. Modelling by the Burnet Institute estimates that it will result in a 25% drop in funding for the global HIV response, and as many as 2.9 million excess HIV-related deaths by 2030.
David Mundell
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. It is very important we emphasise that it is women and girls who will be most affected by those cuts. It is not those stereotypes sometimes presented by some in the US who are affected; it is women and girls.
Monica Harding
The right hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will come to later.
USAID modelling suggests that the actions of Trump and Musk could result in 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases, such as Ebola, each year. When Ebola ripped through west Africa a decade ago, it had a case fatality of around 40%. It was kept from our shores thanks to a global response in which America and Britain played crucial roles. When we step back from funding and supporting global health initiatives, we put ourselves at risk. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for the Government to reaffirm our commitment to the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund, because it is the right thing to do for British interests.
There is some hope. The situation is still fluid, and I urge the Government to impress upon the US Administration the moral and strategic imperative for development. Meanwhile, the US Administration have emphasised that America will continue to provide humanitarian aid and respond to disasters, at least to a degree. That is welcome, but if the funding is to be effective it must be provided in accordance with foundational humanitarian principles: impartiality, neutrality and independence. Israel’s Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American-backed scheme, disregards those principles. In consequence, it is dangerous, unworkable and profoundly insufficient. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to affirm Britain’s commitment to those principles and to all allies, and to urge American counterparts to do the same.
The decisions taken by the US Administration to slash and gut USAID are profoundly depressing; that our Government have followed their lead is even more so. Britain is withdrawing when our voice is needed more than ever. The slashed UK aid budget cannot fulfil our commitments. We hear that Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine are ringfenced. In the absence of the US, we wonder about those other humanitarian hotspots: Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Mali, Haiti and Bangladesh.
We hear that our Government’s priorities are conflict, climate change and health. What about women and girls, nutrition and education? At the same time, the Government toy with rhetoric and framing borrowed from the Trump playbook, saying that Britain is no longer a charity. Let us be clear and united: development serves British interests. It is not charity or a giant cash dispenser in the sky, but a deposit account for our safety and security. That is because funding global health is better than battling a pandemic; supporting peacebuilding is cheaper than fighting a war, or dealing with the terrorism that emerges out of instability; and aid in economic development and climate mitigation are better than coping with mass displacement and channel crossings.
Every crisis creates opportunities, and the American withdrawal is no different. While the USA dismantles overseas assistance—ripping out 85% of it, and the plumbing, too—Britain must use its tradition of leadership and step forward as a convening power, with bold and brave thinking and a long-term vision for aid, starting by laying out a road map for returning to 0.7% of GNI, as we are required to do by statute. That law has not changed. I worry about the Government’s failure to square that with the notoriously generous British public. The impact of the UK aid cut, alongside the US cut, has not been made clear. It will mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost worldwide.
Instead of short-term decision making and chasing domestic headlines, we must invest in a long-term vision for Britain and security for our future. We have yet to see any script from the Government on what Britain is for. How we behave now will define how we are seen on the world stage. We still have a seat at the table and we may say that we still have the expertise to lead, but if money does not follow, it would be arrogant to assume that we will keep that seat. Britain is compassionate. We do not have to follow America blindly; we can use our proud and long tradition in development and aid, look outwards and lead.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing the debate. It is very timely, coming as it does one day before the Chancellor’s spending review announcement.
It is more than three months since the Prime Minister announced the reduction in aid spending, yet we still await a clear picture of what that means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) eloquently set out. I appreciate that there are challenges for the Minister but, like the international development sector and partners, I still have many unanswered questions about what this means for UK development priorities, especially in the context of changes to USAID.
Decisions about the levels of US aid are, quite rightly, a matter for the US Government, but we should acknowledge that this is the new reality we are working with. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to be across the changes and the detail, and to understand what they mean for the sector and our partners.
What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the changes to USAID? Understanding where the impact will be is crucial to ensuring that our programmes are as effective as they can be, given the global and domestic context. With that in mind, has the Minister assessed the number of UK aid programmes that are likely to be impacted and which sectors will be most affected? I would also be grateful for an update on her latest discussions with her counterparts in the US, as well as counterparts in other donor countries. Is she aware of any programmes or policy areas that the US is vacating where there might be appropriate opportunities for the UK to take on the mantle and further our own national interest?
Global health, as we have heard today, is an area where the UK has made a significant and positive contribution, for example to Gavi and the Global Fund. In 2020, while we hosted the global vaccine summit, it was the Conservative Government who committed £1.65 billion to Gavi. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. These interventions really do matter: Gavi has saved 18.8 million lives and the Global Fund 65 million. Those are not numbers, but real lives, real people and real results. Sadly, we are yet to see a pledge from this Government.
Another example of global health in action is the Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa programme. By working with African partners and the World Health Organisation to help to detect and tackle future epidemics and drug-resistant infections, the programme was integral to stopping Africa’s worst Ebola outbreak in 20 years. It is therefore rather concerning that we read in the press that the programme is at risk. Diseases do not respect borders, and we need to understand the risk of the changes for us at home. What assessment has the Minister made, ahead of the spending review, to inform her about how the global health budget should be managed?
On women and girls, the UK also has a good story to tell. In government, the Conservatives launched the women and girls strategy for 2023-30, which affirmed our commitment to the three Es: education, empowering women and girls, and ending violence. We worked with partners such as Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, demonstrating how the public and private sectors can work together to achieve maximum impact. Similarly, sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes are, as we have heard today, essential for saving lives and achieving gender equality, and, crucially, for empowering women. This is an area where the UK has a strong record of delivering.
As we are sadly all too aware, conflict has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often, they are locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and to build peace. The women, peace and security agenda we championed in government is about building a more representative and effective approach to tackling conflict and advocating for women’s rights in an ever more challenging world. It matters because empowered and engaged women make societies more prosperous and more secure. The Minister’s colleague, the International Development Minister, recently told the International Development Committee that education and gender are likely to be impacted by the changes to ODA. As a priority, can the Minister therefore help us understand how that will impact on the FCDO’s work in women and girls’ education, SRHR, maternal health and the broader women, peace and security agenda?
There are so many other areas I would like to raise in the context of changes to USAID. As ever, I am conscious of time, but it is important that we do not lose sight of, for example, strong institutions and capacity building, and tackling corruption and illicit finance. Without that, we cannot help partner countries to become stronger and better allies—something that is increasingly important in today’s ever more challenging world.
De-mining in post-conflict and active conflict zones remains crucial. In that area, funding to the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—great examples of British NGOs—has helped not to just support the clearance of explosives, but to raise awareness of the danger of mines and, crucially, train and build capacity in countries so that they can help to clear the mines themselves.
I would also like to touch on nutrition, which underpins good development. The recent Nutrition for Growth summit in March this year is yet another example of a sector left in limbo where the UK did not make a financial commitment.
It has been clear throughout this debate that there are still many unanswered questions and much uncertainty in the sector. I know that I am not alone in having received answers to written questions telling me to wait for the spending review. My latest tally of such answers is 59, and the story is the same almost regardless of the policy area. Similarly, the Shafik review of international development appears to have been left gathering dust on the Foreign Secretary’s desk. There are so many unanswered questions, creating much uncertainty in an ever-changing and complex world of conflict.
I have a specific and topical question to press the Minister on regarding ODA spending on Chagos. What funds from ODA will be used as part of the payments and support for Mauritius under Labour’s Chagos surrender deal?
Finally, how have the changes to USAID impacted the Minister’s decisions on UK development priorities? Has her Department made a full sector-by-sector, country-by-country impact assessment ahead of tomorrow’s spending review that takes into account the new development landscape we are operating in?
As we adjust to the new reality with respect to USAID, it is vital that the UK is alive to the impact on our international development programmes while ensuring effectiveness in our delivery. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I am sure, I remain patient and will wait until the spending review tomorrow, but let me reassure the Minister and her Department that if I am left with more questions than answers after that, I will keep asking those questions.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the lead Member to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to have heard such excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and others who have direct experience in this important field.
To repeat the words of the Minister for Development in the other place, this is a very difficult time for the development sector. The world is changing and the post-world war two consensus is under significant strain. We face increasingly complex, interconnected and politically charged global issues. As we have heard, cuts to USAID, combined with funding decisions by other donors, including the UK, will have significant implications for tackling global development challenges. We are working closely with partners to understand the impact and provide support.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she has asked lots of questions, which is, of course, part of her job as spokesperson. However, she might want to cast her mind back to the period between February 2020 and December 2021, when she was the Minister and got the axe out so quickly that there were in-year funding cuts, job losses and an enormous tremor across the sector. I remember many people coming to see me, as the Opposition spokesperson, and saying, “Could the Government not at least take a considered view over time, not rush to do these things and try to have some respect for the sector?”
Wendy Morton
In my comments, I was appreciative of the challenges that any Government faces in such circumstances. However, I gently remind the Minister that this is now happening on her Government’s watch and, as she rightly acknowledges, my job as the shadow development Minister is to keep asking those questions. What the sector needs is certainty, and the Government clearly have not learned that.
Catherine West
On the tone of the speech by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), we should also remember the 2010 to 2015 period, when cut after cut in public funding inflicted quite a deal of pain on the recipients of that public funding.
Monica Harding
Does the Minister agree, though, that after receiving a note from the Labour Government saying there was no more money left, the coalition Government increased the aid budget to 0.7%? In fact, 0.7% of gross national income has been in the Lib Dem manifesto since 1970. When we were in government, we delivered it; when we left government, it was cut.
Catherine West
I think the hon. Lady may have a good debating point in this Chamber, but the result of the 2015 election says it all.
David Taylor
I want to add to what the Minister is saying. The point is that, yes, the coalition Government did protect the aid budget, but by cutting public services in this country to the core, they undermined public trust in Government. That meant that lots of people faced need, and it led to increasing calls of, “Charity begins at home; why are we spending this money abroad?” If we had kept the settlement that we had under the last Labour Government, whereby we invested in public services at home and abroad, we would not have ended up in this mess.
Catherine West
I think we are all making the important point that since the 2008 global crash, our economy has never really been the same and we have struggled to make progress, whether on wages and living conditions at home or on completely fulfilling our responsibilities abroad. As one says, we are where we are. General reductions in public spending are part of a broader set of pressures facing the international development system.
Support for multilateralism has been wavering for some time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) said, amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Many of our partners feel that the current system no longer responds to their needs. The combined impact of these two factors is significant, and let me briefly expand on them.
First, on the disbanding of USAID, it is inevitable that significant cuts will have lasting implications for how we tackle global development challenges. I cannot say how pleased I am that the International Development Committee will go to the USA to have face-to-face dialogue with friends about how we can save the most important elements of our programmes. Given the knowledge base of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is well known for his work on global health, HIV/AIDS, Gavi, Unitaid and the Global Fund, he will be able to make pertinent arguments with friends there. I would also ask the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his connections in the faith sector, to impress on all the different faith-based charities the need to continue their important work where they can and to have many people doubling their tithe.
Jim Shannon
I have suggested this in the past, because there is a real possibility of doing good things together: those organisations would be keen to work alongside Government through their NGOs, if that was possible. I think I have asked the Minister this before, but I am interested in whether she would by sympathetic to that idea.
Catherine West
I will certainly pass that idea back to the Minister with responsibility for development, because we always end up having good ideas in Westminster Hall debates.
The US is a key partner, but this is a matter for them. It is their budget. We have a strong relationship with the US that is founded on shared interests and common approaches. Together with our G7 and G20 allies, we carry strong global influence, and we must never stand back from that. That is why we are committed to working with the US and other countries on our shared priorities. We are in regular touch with US counterparts to share advice as they shape their development plans. As in any diplomatic relationship, we will not always align with the US, and we may want to focus on other things. That is normal. We will engage in a pragmatic way to understand concerns and find a way forward.
Many Members have mentioned the multilateral system. No single country can solve the global development challenges alone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for pointing that out as well as the importance of working with international financial institutions, which she learned through her experience before coming to this place. This is where we have to be much more innovative. We cannot just sit around the table and nod through reports; we have to put some life back into those systems so that we can enable the finance and the technical aid, which the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also mentioned. Through technical assistance and international financial organisations, we are not powerless —we can use them. There is an opportunity to rebuild trust, rebalance power and design a more effective, inclusive, co-operative and future-proof architecture.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, mentioned the 1970s. We must not forget, at a moment like this, what the development sector has done. So many more people lived in abject poverty before, and there is now a growing middle class, and much of that is down to really bright people, employed by NGOs in those countries, who are leading movements and improving the economy. Under 10% of people are now living at the poorest level, which used to be on $1 a day. The development Minister will know the statistic, but it has reduced to 9%. This debate, as well as lots of other evidence, is going into the spending review so that decisions can be made. We know that a preponderance of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is being taken into account.
Alice Macdonald
The other concentration of people living in extreme poverty is in conflict-affected states. As much as this is about providing humanitarian aid once disaster happens, we also have to invest in prevention in the first place. Would the Minister reflect on the importance of conflict prevention in our aid efforts?
Catherine West
Indeed. This is about not just aid, but the women, peace and security programme, which I spoke at in Manila a couple of months back, and the important work that we do in Colombia, Mindanao in the Philippines and other places to ensure that women have a voice. I am very aware that many Members in this Chamber understand the importance of empowering women to solve the difficulties relating to how communities live abroad in very poor or conflict-affected areas. The Government will continue their commitment to supporting women and girls by being a champion for them across the world—by showing up and making our voice heard. Quite a few international partners have mentioned to me at conferences that I am the first UK Minister they have seen for years. This is partly about our diplomatic presence, including at ministerial level, so that we can be confident champions of women and girls in our multilateral work, and improve the quality of mainstreaming in our growth, climate, health and humanitarian programmes.
Wendy Morton
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to ensuring that half our development budget goes to women and girls?
Catherine West
It would be unwise of me, the day before the spending review, to give an exact figure. However, I reassure the right hon. Member that we will give extra-special attention to working with women’s organisations, particularly local organisations in crisis and climate-affected contexts, which I know are close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North. We will mainstream gender equality to put women and girls at the heart of everything we do.
We now have a champion for women, Baroness Harman. Some Members may remember her from this House, and she is not to be taken lightly. She will go over our proposals with a fine-toothed comb and support the work we do to help women political and economic leaders, like her, and activists in their home countries—those who have real legitimacy with their populations—to ensure that development and humanitarian programmes integrate women’s perspectives and needs, and address the barriers that they face. That is as relevant in conflict and peacebuilding as it is in education.
I will make some further brief points on global health. We will continue to invest in multilateral funds such as Gavi and the Global Fund. I know many here are champions of that work. There was an emphasis in this debate on child nutrition, which is paramount.
Moving on to the question of climate and nature, we will tackle climate change by backing investments that help countries to grow green and resilient economies. When we consider the COP meetings abroad, we see, following disasters and emergencies, that there is so much poverty and so much aid has to be spent. We must work harder through our financial institutions to bring forward prevention schemes for very climate-affected areas. Pakistan and the speech that Sherry Rehman made at COP two years ago come to mind, as do the Pacific islands—an area that my brief covers—which are literally under threat of sinking. Those are the sorts of areas where climate interventions are crucial and where climate will continue to be a very important point.
Members have mentioned some of the real hotspots we are looking at at the moment, including Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Myanmar, and I will briefly emphasise the importance of our humanitarian response. Colleagues will remember that following the dreadful earthquake in Sagaing in Myanmar, through support from the UK public together with the Disasters Emergency Committee match-funding UK citizens’ contributions, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was able to provide £25 million in total, equivalent to China, to those who were suffering. The International Development Committee has heard from Dr Sasa and others from outside Myanmar who are championing proper political reform, so that less aid will eventually be required once the political system gets up and running there.
Afghanistan has been mentioned as a crucial area, particularly for women and girls. I want briefly to talk up the importance of the BBC World Service and its Bitesize learning modules, through which women can listen to the radio and learn English and other basic subjects. That came out of covid, and it is an example of excellence. When a young mother with perhaps eight or nine children is washing their clothes, she can listen to English and hope one day to be able to use that to empower her and her family, and also hopefully to have an improved future. Those sorts of interventions are incredibly important.
The UK remains committed to playing a leading role in international development. We will work with our partners, including the US and the global south. I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) did sound very evangelical in his speech, I liked it. I think it is important that we do have a moral heart in a lot of the work we do. We know that working with the US and the global south to reimagine a development system that meets our shared priorities, builds new partnerships, and harnesses the power of trade, AI, technology and private capital will not be quick or easy. But by working together, we can build a system that is inclusive, effective and gives voice to all who have a stake in it.
Brian Mathew
I thank everyone who has spoken today; I am minded of the words of Jo Cox, who said that there is more that unites us than divides us. If we look back to the formation of the original Overseas Development Administration, that was under a Labour Government, as was the Department for International Development. But it was under the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition that the 0.7% of GNI was reached, so we have much to be proud of in terms of what we have done and what we need to do. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) mentioned the “Make Poverty History” speech by Nelson Mandela in Trafalgar Square. I was there, right at the front of the crowd. It was a proud day indeed.
I will end with another quote from JFK, because I think it is important to focus our minds. We choose to do the right things
“not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.
We need to stand up for aid and for people. Let us focus our minds on that and not just on rhetoric. The buck stops not just in Washington, but here.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Demand
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
The convention for 30-minute debates is that the lead Member makes a speech, to which the Minister responds, and only with prior permission can another Member make a speech. More and more, it has become the norm that Members intervene quite a lot. That is not really the point of a 30-minute debate, but I remind Members of the convention that the Chair should be informed by any Member who wishes to intervene.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling demand for prostitution and sex trafficking.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. There is a group of people who do not get talked about enough in Parliament. In fact, they are rarely mentioned in public at all. We seldom hear from them directly, and we rarely knowingly encounter them on our screens or in person. It is almost as if they are invisible. I suspect that that is how they would like to remain, because if we heard what they said and saw what they did, we would want to stop them. This group of people is men who pay for sex.
Sex buyers rely on being unseen while they ruin lives, leaving us as a society and the individual women to pick up the pieces of the carnage they cause. The demand from men who pay for sex fuels a brutal prostitution and sex trafficking trade. It funds predatory websites that make millions of pounds advertising women for sexual exploitation every day and causes untold trauma to some of society’s most vulnerable women while undermining equality for all women.
This debate is an opportunity to bring the demand for sex and sex trafficking out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Who are the men who create this demand? To answer that, I will read their own words, written on a website on which men anonymously rate and review women who they have paid for sex:
“No smile, her atrocious English made the interactions even more impossible.”
“I asked for OW”
—oral without a condom—
“which she did reluctantly...This was a very sub-standard service from someone who is not interested in providing customer satisfaction.”
“She basically just laid back, shut her eyes and let me get on with it. She made no noises. I put up with about 5 minutes of her lying there-like a side of beef before sitting up.”
“Bad attitude. Everything was off limits.”
“Finally, I got her to lay there, but it’s like shagging a dead fish.”
I am sure we can all agree that those remarks are sickening. Men who buy sex review women as if they are reviewing an Xbox game. Those comments prove that men who pay for sex treat women as subordinate sex objects whose role is to service their sexual desires, and they represent just a handful of the approximately 28,000 reviews left on one sex buyers website.
Researcher Alessia Tranchese found that the most misogynistic reviews were posted about women disrupting buyers’ fantasies, such as failing to adequately pretend that they wanted to have sex with these men. Negative reviews of women were used as a tool to control their behaviour—publicly punishing resistance while rewarding compliance with their sexual demands. Sex buyers may delude themselves into thinking that paying money absolves them of responsibility for subjecting vulnerable women to unwanted sex, but the opposite is true. It is not possible to commodify sexual consent; the money is coercion. As the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls states:
“prostitution is intrinsically linked to different forms of violence against women and girls and constitutes a form of violence in and of itself.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. It is a hard subject to speak about and it is incredibly hard to listen to—not because of the hon. Lady, but because the subject content is so graphic. I know that the hon. Lady is aware of the Northern Ireland legislation, but does she agree that there is a need to make profiting from the prostitution of others illegal with criminal repercussions? The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 does this. Will she join me in calling for UK-wide legislation to protect vulnerable men and women from the exploitative sex industry? I know that the Minister is always keen to answer, and she does well.
Tracy Gilbert
I will come to that later, and yes, I do agree with those comments.
The most recent research into the scale of paying for sex found that 3.6% of men in the UK report having paid for sex in the previous five years. Men who are most likely to have paid for sex are single, aged from 25 to 34, in managerial or professional occupations, and report high numbers of sexual partners. Shockingly, but not surprisingly, it was revealed last month that multiple members of the Scottish Parliament have paid for sex. We can only predict that Members or former Members of this House have too.
Demand is not inevitable, and the law plays a pivotal role in whether this minority of men choose to pay for sex. In one UK study, researchers asked over 1,200 sex buyers whether they would change their behaviour if a law was introduced that made paying for sex a crime. Over half said that they would definitely, probably or possibly change their behaviour. While sex buyers are driven by male sexual entitlement, ultimately, they do it because they can. The law is not just failing to stop these men; it is making it easy. Not only is paying for sex legal in England, Wales and Scotland, so are the pimping websites advertising thousands of women each day for sex buyers to choose from.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this debate. Does she agree that pimping websites are facilitating sex trafficking of women, making it easier for traffickers and organised crime groups to profit from the dehumanising, violence, exploitation and trade of vulnerable women?
Tracy Gilbert
These websites function as massive online brothels. They are the go-to place for traffickers to advertise their victims. I have said it before and I will say it again: pimping websites are making it as easy to order a room and to sexually exploit as it is to order a takeaway.
I want to talk about the women who face the devastating consequences of prostitution and sex trafficking for the rest of their lives. In a 2016 inquiry, the Home Affairs Committee found that a number of prostitutes were in a vulnerable position. Evidence from St Mungo’s showed that one in four women living in its housing services was a current or former prostitute. Its evidence also showed that, of its residents who had experienced rough sleeping, one in three was a current or former prostitute. In 2022, Beyond the Streets published a report by Grayce Collis and Dr Katie Thorlby that found that 78% of women actively seeking support to leave prostitution needed support with their mental health, while 71% needed support with their relationships with friends and family, which are often broken, and 63% needed support to access employment and education. Tragically, a database managed by National Ugly Mugs recorded 180 murders of prostitutes across the UK between 1990 and 2016. Evidence from Agenda to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry stated that
“Women in prostitution are 18 times more likely to be murdered than the general female population.”
Behind those statistics are vulnerable women, who all too often feel there is no escape from the exploitation they face. Fiona Broadfoot told Sky News in 2018 that she was physically abused and exploited by her pimp from the age of 15. She detailed how she was introduced into prostitution within two weeks of first meeting him. She was arrested; her pimp was not. Her criminal convictions have followed her out of prostitution, resulting in employment and education opportunities being snatched from her.
Operation Fasthold, a joint operation between Police Scotland and the Home Office, showed that women are trafficked into the UK to meet this demand. In that case, it was mainly women from east Asia, uprooted and coerced into prostitution, afterwards finding themselves at the mercy of our asylum process, stuck in low-paid work or at the hands of another criminal gang. In Edinburgh, over this weekend, 142 women were advertised for prostitution on one website alone. Five of the top 10 adverts are explicitly posted by so-called agencies, so the site does not even try to hide the organised nature of this exploitation.
The devastation and exploitation of women continues, and something has to change. The law must deter demand for prostitution and sex trafficking, and reflect the reality that prostitution is violence against women by holding perpetrators and profiteers to account and, crucially, by supporting victims. A growing number of countries and states have adopted this approach: outlawing paying for sex and profiteering from the prostitution of others, while decriminalising victims of sexual exploitation and providing support and exit services. Those countries include France, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Their experiences show that demand for sex buyers and the trafficking of women to meet that demand can and must be deterred.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this crucial debate to Westminster Hall today. I wonder whether she has noticed the private Members’ Bill tabled by Ash Regan of the Scottish Parliament, which looks to do exactly what she has described by decriminalising the sale of sex. Would she like to congratulate Ash Regan and wish her luck with her Bill?
Tracy Gilbert
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I will come back to that point later in my speech.
Sweden was the first country to criminalise paying for sex while decriminalising victims of sexual exploitation. The more than two decades since the introduction of its 1999 Sex Purchase Act have provided evidence of its effectiveness. Since that pioneering Act was introduced, demand has dropped significantly, public attitudes have been transformed and traffickers are being deterred. An analysis by the European Commission concluded that the Act, coupled with proactive policing,
“has created a less conducive context for trafficking.”
In Ireland, an evaluation by researchers at University College Dublin reported that, under the country’s demand-reduction legislation, there was
“an increased willingness amongst women”
in prostitution
“to report crimes committed against them and in their improved relationship with Gardaí overall.”
In France, there is strong public support for the demand-reduction laws, which is significant given the importance of changing public attitudes and deterring sex buying. An Ipsos survey found that 78% of the French public support the legislation on prostitution, and 74% think that prostitution is violence.
Demand for prostitution and trafficking is not inevitable, and the law has a critical role to play in deterring it. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) mentioned, I welcome the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill, introduced to the Scottish Parliament by Ash Regan MSP, which looks to replicate the lessons learned from other European countries. I hope that all Members of Scottish Parliament will consider the legislation carefully and support it as it makes its way through Parliament. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether UK Government will be looking to bring forward similar legislation.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation and has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to outlaw pimping and paying for sex, and to decriminalise victims of sexual exploitation by removing sanctions for soliciting. I am proud to be among the more than 50 Members of Parliament who are signatories to those amendments.
The proposed reforms are backed by survivors and best-practice frontline support services, such as the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Scotland, nia, Women@TheWell and Kairos, whose representatives I recently met and heard from. These vital amendments will help the Government to meet our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls by reducing the demand for prostitution. I urge Ministers to accept the amendments, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on which amendments may be accepted.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate her on securing this debate, however short—we are all managing to squeeze little bits in. Does she agree that those who argue that outlawing pimping websites will just drive this all underground are absolutely wrong? Actually, the reverse is seen: prosecution rates go up, so the demand decreases.
Tracy Gilbert
I agree. One piece of misinformation surrounding the actions that I have proposed is that outlawing pimping websites would simply displace trafficking to the dark web, making no impact on the scale of sexual exploitation. That claim lacks both logic and evidence. Advertising victims of sex trafficking on the dark web carries multiple disadvantages and barriers for both traffickers and sex buyers. It requires technical expertise from the traffickers to post the adverts and from sex buyers to locate and access the adverts. Advertising on the dark web would substantially restrict the customer base that traffickers could access via their adverts, as well as making it harder to advertise victims in the first place.
A similar myth is that outlawing paying for sex would just drive prostitution underground, making it harder to identify victims and perpetrators, and have no impact on the scale of offending. There is a logical fallacy underlying that claim: men who pay for sex must be able to locate women to sexually exploit. Police officers’ support services can look at exactly the same adverts as sex buyers to locate victims and perpetrators. In short, if sex buyers can find the women being exploited, so can the police.
Perhaps the most destructive myth of all is that being paid to perform sex acts is work, making the men who pay women for sex ordinary consumers. We need to be absolutely clear as policymakers and as a Parliament that there is no such thing as sex work. Giving someone money, accommodation, food or other goods or services in exchange for a sex act is sexual exploitation and abuse. It is never acceptable, and our laws must reflect that.
I thank hon. Members for making the time to attend today’s debate. I hope that, together, we can start to end this exploitation of women. I conclude with the words of Mia de Faoite, a survivor of prostitution, who said that demand reduction legislation that criminalises sex buyers and decriminalises victims works because it puts sex buyers
“at risk of bringing what they do in the dark into who they are in the day.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for securing the debate. The depth of her knowledge and passion about this issue was obvious as she spoke. The men she spoke of in her opening remarks, and the reviews that she read out—she could have read out some that were considerably worse, so the House may appreciate the editing—are utterly despicable. Those men disgust me in their attitude towards women generally, and the suggestion that they should be able to pay for somebody’s horror and then give them a bad review should not sit well with anyone.
Like my hon. Friend, I have a long-standing interest in these issues. I have worked for many years with women trafficked for sex, women sold into sexual slavery from childhood and women forced into sexual exploitation essentially through their circumstances. Today, I still very regularly meet such people. I met some women who were in that situation, or had been in it historically, just last week. We all want to be driven by their voices. I am deeply grateful to everyone who continues to advocate for action to tackle demand for prostitution and sex trafficking and for better support for victims and survivors to recover. The idea that people should be criminalised for it is something that worries us all.
Before I respond to some of the specific points, it is worth outlining that sexual exploitation can take different forms. The trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation is modern slavery. The demand for sexual services is undoubtedly driving that horrific crime. The profit that criminals are making from that exploitation makes it even more sickening. For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped in sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. The daily abuse that they suffer is truly horrific, and my hon. Friend spoke to that.
Any individual who wants to leave prostitution, or who has been sexually exploited, must be given the opportunities to find routes out and to recover. Let us be clear about the scale of this problem; the nature of it makes it difficult to accurately estimate the numbers, but it is something that we have looked at. Research commissioned by the Home Office and conducted by the University of Bristol found that it is not possible to produce a single prevalence estimate for prostitution; however, it assessed a number of existing estimates made over the last 25 years, which range from 35,882 to 104,964 people.
We know that potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation make up a large proportion of referrals to the national referral mechanism, which is the framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery to appropriate support. The most recent statistics show that in 2024 sexual exploitation either partly or wholly accounted for 3,266, or 17%, of all referrals. Of those who are sexually exploited, the majority were female, at 79%. However, prosecutions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do not reflect that.
I am determined to see more trafficking offenders brought to justice. In my modern slavery action plan, I have set out actions we will take together with criminal justice system partners to improve criminal justice outcomes for all modern slavery offences, including the trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation. Prostitution offences and modern slavery are complex and multifaceted crimes, which are often linked to other offending, and people are often victims of multiple elements. Because of that, we have a multifaceted approach, including the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, a commitment to halve violence against women and girls crimes within a decade, and our modern slavery action plan. We will continue to tackle the threat from all angles.
It is clear that much more must be done. We must go further to prevent sexual exploitation by supporting law enforcement to identify and prosecute exploiters and by disrupting the sexual exploitation that is facilitated by online platforms, as hon. Members have mentioned. More broadly, through Safer Streets, we have committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. That effort will be underpinned by the new VAWG strategy to be published this year. I do not want to step on its toes and say what will be in it, as it has not yet been published. I would also probably be fired if I did—actually, I do not think I would be. For the first time, adult sexual exploitation, and the proper understanding of it, will be reflected. As we develop the new strategy and work to tackle modern slavery, we are considering how to tackle the issues raised today and ensure that victims and survivors are supported to recover.
I suspect that everyone in this Chamber is aware of the ongoing debates about the legislative approaches that have been mentioned. I look forward to having further conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—I have already spoken to her many times about this—when the Crime and Policing Bill reaches Report stage next week. Anyone who has worked with me on such issues knows that my primary focus is on outcomes that improve lives.
I want to stress this clearly: legislation alone does nothing. It is illegal to commit domestic abuse—welcome to the world. Twenty-five per cent of referrals to the national referral mechanism come from children being forced into slavery for drug trafficking, but drugs are illegal. The idea that we can write something into legislation that, in and of itself, will solve this problem overnight is absolutely for the birds. The illegality of drugs has not stopped the trafficking of children for drugs in our country, so we have to look at legislative models and at what will actually work. I am only interested in actual outcomes.
As the Minister, I will use every lever available to me to clamp down on sexual exploitation. The Government’s position will be informed by the views of victims and survivors, the voluntary and community sector, which works directly with victims and survivors, the police and others.
In the time I have left, I want to talk about adult service websites. As Members are aware, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response needs to reflect that. Online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for the content on their sites, and must take proactive steps to prevent criminals from using their sites. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services. As of 17 March, they need to implement safety measures to protect users from illegal content, such as that set out in Ofcom’s codes of practice, or face significant penalties.
We are going further. Clause 13 of the Crime and Policing Bill will equip law enforcement with new tools to disrupt sexual exploitation that is facilitated through online platforms. Law enforcement will be able to apply to the courts for an order to suspend the IP and domain names for the specified period of up to 12 months when they are being used for serious crime, including offences relating to sexual exploitation—it will not take us very long to find one that is. We are in the foothills of this legislation being rolled out, but I look forward to some clear action being taken.
The Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of trafficking and sexual exploitation through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific perpetrators. The Government will keep policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation under review. We want to ensure online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate exploitation from their sites, and we will take further action to achieve that if necessary.
To those sites—those of us who have worked in this area know what they are—I say this. We are coming for you; the law is not on your side. You must be cleaned up or further regulation will have to come. We cannot have sites on which people can buy and sell human beings.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for securing this debate, and I look forward to the debates that we will have as the legislation progresses.
Question put and agreed to.
Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of introducing a capital disregard for payments made to UK residents under the Republic of Ireland’s Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and to introduce this debate. I welcome the Minister and thank him for giving his time to this important matter. I thank Members from across the House who are present today and have been so supportive. Ahead of this debate, over 100 MPs and peers on a cross-party basis signed an open letter in support of Philomena’s law. That included nearly every mainstream party in Britain and Northern Ireland. In the Public Gallery, we are joined by Irish community organisations and survivors, as well as Philomena Lee’s family—her daughter Jane and grandson Joshua.
I will begin by reminding Members what happened to Philomena Lee. Philomena was 18 years old when she became pregnant, and as a result was sent to Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, in Ireland. There, Philomena gave birth to her son, Anthony. They lived there for three years before she was forced to give him up for adoption. Anthony was sold to a couple in the United States; Philomena would never see him again.
Philomena’s story brought the scandal of Ireland’s mother and baby homes to a global audience through the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, where she is played by Dame Judi Dench. The film also stars Steve Coogan, who plays Martin Sixsmith, the BBC journalist who helped Philomena Lee in her heartbreaking search for her son. I am delighted that Philomena’s law has the support of Philomena Lee and her family, as well as the public backing of Steve Coogan. This campaign to change the law seeks justice for thousands of women like Philomena and their children, who were resident in Ireland’s mother and baby homes.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I and many others have watched the film. Does he agree that although many of us are very critical of the media—I am among them—on this occasion, a matter was brought to wider attention that otherwise might not have been? We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who were involved in the broadcasting of such a film.
Liam Conlon
I completely agree, and it shows the power of film and culture to tell such stories.
Mother and baby homes were open in Ireland for more than seven decades until the 1990s. During that time, 56,000 so-called fallen women were sent to those cruel institutions, and 57,000 children were born or placed in them. The women’s only crime was the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. There they suffered the most horrific mistreatment and abuse. Women were used as unpaid labour. Others, like Philomena, had their children forcibly adopted, sometimes overseas, never to be seen again. Too many women died in these institutions, and infant mortality was shockingly high.
Many survivors who escaped moved to Britain as a direct result of the mistreatment they experienced in mother and baby homes. In some cases, they came because they thought that disappearing from Ireland was the only way to protect their families’ reputations. Thousands came to this country for a fresh start and to build a new life, but they carried with them a great deal of internalised shame as well as the secret of what had happened to them. For lots of survivors, including Philomena, it was not until much later in life that they felt able to confront what had happened to them and share the details of those traumatic years with their families, often revealing long-lost relatives in the process.
It was a significant day in 2021 when survivors finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach Micheál Martin for what he described as:
“the profound, generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children”.
That was followed by the mother and baby institutions payment scheme to provide compensation for what happened to them. The scheme opened to applications in March 2021. It represents a measure of accountability for what happened and aims to acknowledge the suffering, and improve the circumstances, of former residents of mother and baby homes.
However, for more than 13,000 survivors living in Britain today, what was meant to be a token of acknowledgement and apology has ended up becoming an additional burden. That is because under our current rules, any money accepted through the payment scheme is considered to be savings, and it could see recipients lose any means-tested benefits—such as housing benefit, pension credit or financial support for social care—that they receive.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the fantastic work carried out by Irish Community Services in Bexleyheath in my constituency. It is supporting a number of survivors who are in those circumstances and would lose their means-tested benefit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to look at disregarding the rules, so that survivors can keep both their compensation and any benefit that they are entitled to?
Liam Conlon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work of Irish Community Services in Bexleyheath is outstanding, and I will discuss some of the work of other community groups shortly. We absolutely need to see an indefinite disregard.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member not only on securing this debate, but on leading the charge on this issue in the House and commanding such enormous and widespread cross-party support. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied? We all agree with what he is calling for, and we hope the Minister may agree with it later, too. However, it is not good enough just to agree. There is a real urgency about getting justice for those women who were affected, and for their descendants and families, to whom we all pay tribute.
Liam Conlon
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for being the constituency MP of the real-life Philomena, whom I know she has been supporting. She is right that for many of these survivors, the clock is running.
Broadly speaking, impacted survivors now find themselves in one of three situations. Some accepted compensation before realising the negative impact that it could have. Other survivors have received an offer of compensation, but they have delayed accepting it because of the uncertainty around how their benefits or social care might be impacted. Finally, there are survivors who are not making an application at all until the picture becomes clearer.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this important issue alongside Irish community groups here in the UK. As he will know, thousands of survivors left Ireland for Britain, with huge numbers of them settling in the north-west. They were scarred by the physical and emotional abuse that they had faced, but they were also disturbed by the ease with which powerful institutions could abuse their power without question. Does he agree that more needs to be done to reassure survivors that those administering the scheme will be trauma-informed and act solely in the interests of survivors, and that those who apply for compensation will suffer no detriment to their current entitlements?
Liam Conlon
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. I know that she is a tireless advocate of the Irish community in Salford, of which she is part. She is absolutely right, and I discussed this issue with Patricia Carey, the survivors’ advocate, in Dublin over Easter.
There are survivors who will not make an application at all until the picture becomes clearer, and that is contributing to the incredibly low take-up of the scheme by eligible survivors in Britain. At just 5%, the take-up rate here falls far behind that in Ireland. Unfortunately, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in making applications or accepting offers risk people not living long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due.
Let me give just one recent example. A man who was born into a mother and baby home became so concerned about the impact that any compensation would have on his benefits that he held off making a decision for as long as possible. Sadly, after finally accepting the offer, he passed away within a matter of months, unable to benefit from the compensation that he was due. I think we can all agree that the situation is unjust.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. It is clear to me and to all of us who support his campaign that it is about justice. Does he agree that the low uptake of the scheme might also be down to a significant amount of internalised shame, as expressed by my own family members who have been affected by this? What he is doing today is putting a full stop to that shame and drawing a line to say that this will never happen again in any of our institutions, in Ireland or in the UK.
Liam Conlon
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that she has a strong personal connection to this issue. She is right to note that for decades women lived under a cloud of secrecy and shame. Having the conversation publicly in this campaign is partly to deliver justice and also to tackle the stigma of being in a mother and baby home.
Philomena’s law seeks to right that wrong. It proposes the introduction of what is called a capital disregard, which would mean that any compensation from the scheme is ringfenced. It would enable survivors to apply for and accept the payments without fear that doing so would negatively affect their benefits. There is strong precedent for such a solution. The same mechanism has been used for many other special compensation schemes in the past, including supporting the victims of Windrush, those affected by the 7/7 and Manchester bombings, the blood contamination scandal and many more. One change in the law could have a significant impact on the lives of thousands of survivors, and that is what the campaign seeks to deliver.
Before I conclude, I want to turn to the many Irish community and civic society organisations, some of which are represented here today. For many years, they have done vital work to support survivors across the country. I am delighted that we are joined by Rosa from Irish in Britain, Patrick from the Fréa Network, Séan and Katie from the London Irish Centre, Noelette from the Luton Irish Forum, Manisha and Simon from the Coventry Irish Society and so many more. From family tracing to support groups and counselling, to practical help with payment scheme applications, those groups are on the frontline, working around the clock to get the best possible outcomes for survivors.
Ireland’s mother and baby homes were cruel institutions. More than 100,000 women and children were either placed in them or born there. Thousands of them suffered horrific mistreatment and abuse and were forced to live under a cloud of secrecy and shame. After decades of campaigning, survivors finally received an apology from the Irish Government and access to a redress scheme, but 13,000 survivors living in Britain today are at risk of not being able to access compensation without the fear of losing means-tested benefits.
That is by default rather than by design, but it is firmly within our gift to correct it. Philomena’s law, named after the courageous Philomena Lee, and in tribute to every survivor in Britain, will do just that by ringfencing payments. We can do it; we have done it already for victims of other scandals, including blood contamination and Windrush. Although I appreciate that it is unprecedented to ringfence payments from a foreign Government, everything is unprecedented until it happens. We have an opportunity, through Philomena’s law, to help to deliver justice and, in doing so, show thousands of women and children survivors the empathy, kindness and respect they have so often been denied throughout their lives.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I should also mention there is likely to be a vote shortly, at which point we will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes to allow Members to vote.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing today’s debate and congratulate him on bringing forward a ten-minute rule Bill on Philomena’s law. I am proud to put my name to that Bill as a co-sponsor, particularly as I represent a significant Irish diaspora in my constituency, with close ties between the UK and Ireland. I hope the Minister understands the importance of those ties.
As has already been outlined, Philomena’s law is named after Philomena Lee, who was 18 when she became pregnant and was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, where she gave birth to her son Anthony and lived for three years before being forced to give him up for adoption. We have heard about the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, which told the story of her painstaking search to be reunited with Anthony.
Philomena’s story sadly struck a chord for thousands of mothers and their children who not only suffered in those cruel institutions, but were ever changed by the lasting mark it made on their lives. With great thanks to Luton Irish Forum, which does brilliant work supporting our Irish diaspora, I am honoured to share a snippet of the story of my constituent, Christina, who is here today. She has been really courageous in sharing her story and allowing me to mention her in my speech.
Christina was born in a mother and baby home in Rathdrum, County Wicklow. Christina’s mother escaped and ran away with her just weeks after her birth, but subsequently left Christina on the doorstep of a church in Dublin. Christina spent much of her life being passed from foster family to foster family, where she experienced physical abuse, taunting and humiliation, including from those caring for her and neighbours on the street where she lived. She eventually reconnected with her mother during her teenage years, after hiring a detective to track her down, and realised that she was living in Dublin, just minutes from where Christina was working in a factory.
Unfortunately Christina and her mother never forged a close relationship, but it is important to ensure that these stories are heard, because the trauma Christina endured and the shame associated with mother and baby institutions in Ireland unfortunately mirrors the story of tens of thousands of women and children who experienced harsh conditions and mistreatment, with many fleeing to England to escape. It is right that the Irish Government opened the mother and baby institutions payment scheme for survivors of mother and baby homes in March 2024 to recognise the impact of the time they spent in those institutions. However, for those now living in England, further hurdles remain and are preventing those eligible for the scheme from accessing the compensation they are entitled to.
Survivors who accept an offer of payment from the scheme could lose a range of means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, pension credit and financial support for social care, as the payment would be treated as savings. This complicated and unfair situation has made the payments scheme, which was supposed to be a token of apology from the Irish Government, into an additional burden and hurdle for many. The uncertainty and stress involved is causing yet more trauma for survivors, and many eligible applicants have delayed accepting the money they have been offered or not made applications in the first place as a result.
Sadly, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in accepting offers or making applications run the risk that many people will not live long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge in his efforts to implement Philomena’s law, which would put right this unfair situation through the introduction of an indefinite capital disregard and would ringfence any compensation accepted through the scheme so that it would not impact benefits or social care calculations.
Lola McEvoy
I thank my hon. Friend for her eloquent articulation of Christina’s story. Does she agree that the capital disregard functionality could be extended to future compensation schemes? Instead of each campaign group going through the trauma of trying to get an exemption for people on means-tested benefits, it could be stipulated that, when a compensation scheme is deemed to come into law, the capital disregard is automatically part of it.
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making a hugely pertinent point; I know the Minister will have heard it very well.
Although compensation for survivors will not reverse the damage and trauma inflicted, the least we can do is to ensure that those who are eligible get the payments they deserve, that the process is as easy and stress-free as possible and that we provide them with the kindness and respect that they have too often been denied.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) not just on obtaining this debate here today, but on the extremely important campaign that he has led the charge on. When we get elected as an MP we think, “What am I here for?”. It is about agency, and it is about seeking justice for our communities. The community of 13,000 women across the United Kingdom deserve that justice.
I will reflect on what we have heard in the debate and the forced adoption that was inflicted on those youngsters. I was not aware that Philomena had had her son Tony for three years before being forced to give up her child.
Steve Darling
Just before the Division, I was looking to talk about trauma and the significant impact that it has had on those young women’s lives. We know it may have impacted them for their whole lives, and as Liberal Democrats we feel that justice must be served, and without delay. I look forward to the Minister giving some hope to those who could benefit from this system concerning how it could be put into action—hopefully in a matter of months, rather than years.
I have an admission to make: I have never seen the film “Philomena”—probably because I would find it too upsetting, having been adopted myself. Between 1949 and 1976, 185,000 children went through a system within the UK where a culture of adoption existed around certain mother and baby units up and down England and Wales. Jon Holmes, who many of us will know from Radio 4 comedy, did a very good “File on 4” programme on the impact on those individuals, particularly the mothers. Although he was adopted, he never found his birth mother.
I was very fortunate: although I was adopted in Birmingham, my parents, Eric and Penny, who were outstanding adoptive parents, moved down to Torquay. About 15 years ago I found my birth mother, Pam, living only nine miles from Torquay. We meet regularly and have had Christmas dinner together, but it is evident how what she went through with losing me has left her with trauma and an emotional scar throughout her life. I am sure that that was also the case, if not amplified to a large extent, in the mother and baby units in Ireland, where there were significantly more state-sponsored institutions involved in the forced adoption and forced labour, and a sense of shame on individuals.
We need to see that justice is brought to bear on this situation. We need to see Philomena’s law enacted. Capital disregard was applied in relation to the 7/7 terrorist attacks and the institutional sexual abuse of children. In recent months, the same principle has been applied in respect of tainted blood; that measure has only recently gone through the Commons. I implore the Minister to ensure that we drive Philomena’s law, as a matter of urgency, and let it take flight.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I am proud to speak in this debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon). I applaud his tremendous dedication in campaigning for Philomena’s law. I am also here to represent Liverpool’s Irish community and diaspora, in particular the survivors and victims of the Irish mother and baby homes scandal.
The survivors faced appalling treatment in those homes. I join colleagues in welcoming the Irish Government’s compensation scheme for survivors of the scandal. Many survivors came to England as a direct result of their experiences, either to flee their past or because they were sent overseas on leaving the homes. The Liverpool Echo reports that up to 40% of the 38,000 former residents eligible to apply for the compensation scheme now live in the UK. One of the survivors who came to England was Philomena Lee, after whom the law is of course named. Her father would not take her back after her time in the Abbey, so the Church sent her to work in a delinquent boys’ home in Liverpool. Philomena lived in my great city for the first two years of her time in England, before moving back. I join colleagues in welcoming Philomena’s daughter Jane and her grandson Josh, who are, as has been mentioned, in the Public Gallery today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge highlighted that, as things stand, when survivors of the scandal who live in Britain accept the compensation owed to them, they risk losing access to means-tested social security support. Some face the choice between accepting the compensation and receiving the means-tested benefits they are entitled to. The proposed Philomena’s law would address that injustice by ringfencing compensation that is accepted so that it would not affect benefits or social care calculations—stopping a further injustice. I place on record my support for the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme (Report) Bill, and I join my hon. Friend in urging the Government to take up that proposal.
I also place on record my thanks to that magnificent institution in my city, the Liverpool Irish Centre—a vital part of Liverpool’s social fabric and an institution I have enjoyed working with and visiting over a long time; I am extremely proud to frequent it on the odd occasion. I am very pleased to say that the Liverpool Irish Centre is working with Fréa to help those affected by the scandal, and I thank it for everything it does in this area.
When I first read about what happened at Irish mother and baby homes, watched the film and saw how people in power initially responded, it really resonated with me. I have also seen at first hand the playbook that is used when institutions cover up wrongdoing and hide their mistakes. For me, it was Hillsborough where, just as with the mother and baby home scandal, we saw state institutions treat working-class people with contempt, only to deceive and conceal their wrongdoing.
In this case, the institutional cover-up lasted for decades, with victims such as Philomena, who did not get the truth until her son had tragically passed away without ever knowing the love his mother had for him. The lack of accountability and justice for those victims and survivors lasted for far too long, but this is far from an isolated case. Here in Britain we also often see the pattern of state cover-ups and the refusal to accept wrongdoing and accountability. That is why we desperately need a Hillsborough law in the UK, ending the culture of cover-ups where state bodies commit acts against their own people only to try and hide them from those very people.
I conclude by reiterating the call for Philomena’s law and by calling on the Government to introduce a Hillsborough law worthy of the name, as a legacy for all those who have suffered at the hands of the state. I hope my Government are listening intently to this, because we will accept nothing less than what the victims of all state cover-ups deserve.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
This is an absolute travesty; we have heard of this situation time and time again, with many different examples. I personally pay tribute to Philomena—my constituent—and to her daughter Jane and her grandson Josh, who are here today, for their courage in speaking about their story. I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) on securing this debate and on leading the charge in this House. Many organisations have been campaigning on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will deliver good news today and also convey a sense of urgency.
We can hear from the speeches in this debate the jarring gap between the profound sense of wrong that happened on the one hand and the “Computer says no” system on the other. I hope sincerely that the Government recognise that gap, come to the right conclusion and respond with urgency and with compassion. That is the very least that the affected women, their families and their descendants deserve.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) on securing this debate and on pursuing his private Member’s Bill. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon.
It is worth reflecting on the stories we have heard. I particularly enjoyed the account shared by the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and it is great to see Christina in the Public Gallery. The point about the age profile for compensation was particularly poignant to hear; these are women who have lived their entire lives with that uncertainty. I was particularly interested as well in the account from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); I do not have the same community of Irish men and women in my constituency, so it was good to hear of the connection that he has and of the impact and role of the Irish community in his constituency.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has the privilege, if that is the word, of having Philomena in her constituency—
Rebecca Smith
An honour—yes, I like that. It is also great to see Jane and Joshua here.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) always makes very good local connections and shares his own stories so well. This has been a really interesting debate and, although we had the break for the Division, we have been able to hear some good stories.
As the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge has rightly set out, the mother and baby institutions payment scheme was introduced by the Irish Government to compensate those who had spent time in those institutions in the Republic of Ireland. Today we have heard many of the stories of those who were impacted. Anyone who has watched the tear-jerking film “Philomena”, starring Judi Dench and Steve Coogan—unlike some hon. Members, I have been able to see it, and I admit to having cried—will be familiar with this story. It is very moving to see the impact that the backgrounds of these men and women have had on them for the rest of their lives.
As we have heard, an astonishing 35,000 single mothers gave birth in these homes throughout the 1900s. These women were ostracised and pushed into the homes so that society could forget them. The most infamous case is of Tuam house, where 802 infants tragically died over a 36-year period. Across those 18 institutions in Ireland, 9,000 children died. We are not just talking about the women. Children lost their lives as well: 15% of all the children who lived in those homes. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that was a travesty.
It is clear that there is agreement across this House on an issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge has alluded to in his private Member’s Bill. Although no amount of money can replace the loss of a child or atone for the trauma that was inflicted, these single mothers have rightly received compensation that ranges from €5,000 to €125,000, depending on their stay. The question is whether the compensation those women received should have an impact on the benefits that they are entitled to as a UK resident. There are 13,000 surviving inhabitants of those homes who moved here to start a new life free from the judgment of the Irish society that they grew up in. As of April 2025, 6,462 applications had been made, with just 11% from UK residents. That means that 700 of those applications are from UK residents, stripping these women of access to benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to. We have heard that described plainly across the Chamber in this debate.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I associate myself with the remarks made across the Chamber about the travesty and life-changing trauma that so many women and children experienced. Does the hon. Member agree that, if Philomena’s law is applied by the UK Parliament, Northern Ireland should be included as part of the United Kingdom, given that a number of women and children will be living in Northern Ireland and encountering the same problem with benefits?
Rebecca Smith
The hon. Lady is a true champion for Northern Ireland. I cannot comment on how that would happen; the Minister is better placed to say whether that is possible. But clearly Northern Ireland is as much a part of the island of Ireland, depending on where one’s politics lie, and it would make sense to include anyone who experienced this. I am not in the position of the Minister in being able to say what might happen in the future.
In this debate we have also well-rehearsed the compensation payments for other well-known scandals: the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the compensation for victims of 7/7, and the Windrush scandal. We know the argument: those people are all eligible for full benefits and their capital is not regarded. Although I appreciate that a precedent can be set, the difference that makes this situation slightly more difficult is that the payments originate from another country. The situation is unique when compared with the others, but ultimately the precedent is clearly there.
Traditionally, the Department for Work and Pensions has opposed the step of disregarding capital payment from additional financial schemes. However, the scheme was only set in motion in 2021. Now that the dust has settled and it is clear that many are not claiming the money they are entitled to because of that lack of disregard, it will be interesting to hear whether the Department plans on changing its mind.
Although in government the Conservative party did not endorse the introduction of a capital disregard for these compensation payments, the issue was also not discussed to the same extent at that time. That is why the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge requires our congratulations; we are three or four years into the scheme, the dust has settled, and it is clear that there are problems with people applying—we cannot get away from that fact.
Under the previous Government, the Irish Government expressed that they would press other Governments to introduce dispensation for these capital payments within their welfare systems. However, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, said in March 2024 that no such approach had been made by the Irish Government. One of the questions for the Minister is whether in his time in office such an approach has been made by the Irish Government. One could argue that the onus is on the Irish Government to provide the list of individuals likely to be impacted by this approach. With the consent of those individuals, that information could be shared with the Department for Work and Pensions so that we at least know who might be in line for that support.
More work is necessary to calculate how many people currently in receipt of welfare benefits in the UK might be impacted, because not everyone who can claim compensation falls into that bracket, and the financial pressure that a lack of dispensation places on them. What sums have been done and what are the numbers likely to be? What would the cost be if the capital payments for this scheme are disregarded when it comes to benefits?
This is an extraordinary situation, as I have already alluded to, and I agree entirely with the position. I wait to see what the Minister and the new Government decide. In 2021, the Taoiseach of Ireland, who, as we have heard, was involved in setting up this scheme, said of the report that brought it about:
“This detailed and highly painful report is a moment for us as a society to recognise a profound failure of empathy, understanding and basic humanity over a lengthy period. Its production has been possible because of the depth of courage shown by all those who shared their personal experiences with the commission. The report gives survivors what they have been denied for so long, namely, their voice, their individuality and their right to be acknowledged.”
That, for me, sums up the entire argument. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine, and to do so in a debate on such an important and emotive subject. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing it. He has spoken passionately today, as have all Members who contributed, and has done so consistently in his fight to bring forward Philomena’s law. I want to say on the record what a champion he has been for that cause.
As we have heard, this was a painful, scandalous and shameful episode in Ireland’s history. It is impossible to imagine the trauma that the women and children who were sent to these institutions suffered; the heartbreaking accounts of their experiences are distressing in the extreme. What happened to them is truly appalling—all the more so because it was only in 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. It is absolutely right that the victims of the scandal are at last receiving some kind of redress through the mother and baby institutions payment scheme in Ireland.
The payments can never, ever put right the terrible suffering that those women were forced to endure. No amount of compensation can make up for what they lost, but compensation for them and their family members is an important acknowledgment of the wrong that was done. Norma Foley, the Irish Government’s Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, recently highlighted how disappointed she is that not all the religious bodies involved have offered meaningful compensation. It appears that only two religious orders have contributed to the scheme in Ireland, so there is still quite some way to go to ensure that there is proper accountability and responsibility for the impact that time in these institutions had on the lives of those women and their children.
What does this scandal mean for the United Kingdom and our social security system? Due to the close historic ties between Ireland and this country, there has always been movement of people from one to the other. My constituency of Stretford and Urmston, much like that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), has a long history of drawing in families from Ireland, which contributed to the economic and cultural growth of the area and helped to shape the communities of today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) continued the theme highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford of the north-west’s significant Irish population and the contributions made by those Irish people to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool in particular. Other Members referenced the same thing in their communities, and the point is not lost on me. The same is true for many of the constituencies that are not represented here today, particularly urban areas where there is a significant Irish diaspora.
It is therefore not surprising that some of the people affected by this scandal are now living in the United Kingdom. The Irish Government estimate the number of applicants to the compensation scheme will be in the region of 34,000. They estimate around 40%—13,600—are living outside Ireland, with the majority assumed to be in the UK, though some will be in other countries too, particularly the United States.
However, as queried by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is no way of knowing exactly how many of those affected and now living in this country are also in receipt of an income-related benefit. On the question of cost, it is simply not possible to give a firm figure or determine the implications of the change, were it to be adopted. It is even less possible to speculate on how many might, at some point in the future, claim an income-related benefit. That is an important factor.
Income-related benefits such as universal credit, housing benefit and pension credit provide a taxpayer-funded safety net for people in various circumstances and on low incomes. The nature of those benefits and the rules under which they operate are approved by Parliament. To ensure that money is directed to those most in need, rules have been developed over many years setting out not only conditions of entitlement, but how a person’s financial and personal circumstances affect the amount they receive. That means income, such as earnings or pensions as well as capital and any savings above a certain level are generally taken into account; that is the point of income-related benefits.
The more money a person already has, the less they can expect to receive from the taxpayer. However, the social security system recognises that, in certain cases, the money or capital someone has can be ignored—or, as the terminology has it, disregarded. In pension credit, for instance, there are 28 separate categories of capital that are disregarded. Examples relevant for today’s debate include various compensation payments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge and others highlighted some examples. These disregards cover medical compensation, such as payments in respect of infected blood; payments in respect of an historic wrong, as was highlighted, including those concerning Windrush and child migrants; and payments resulting from specific events, including payments relating to Grenfell tower and the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund.
The number of disregards has grown over time as Parliament has responded to tragic events and scandals, such as the recent Post Office scandal. We must not forget that income-related benefits are paid for through general taxation, so disregarding a compensation payment comes at a cost to the taxpayer. That is why, when deciding whether a new disregard is appropriate—unfortunately, we live in a world where tragic events and scandals happen—several factors are considered: where the event took place, who is responsible, how many people are affected, and whether it is proportionate to amend the law.
What all the examples I have given have in common is that the circumstances that gave rise to that compensation payment either occurred in this country or involved events for which the UK Government have direct responsibility or liability. The events that are the subject of this debate were a truly horrendous episode in Ireland’s history. We heard multiple references to the film “Philomena,” which I saw a very long time ago—not knowing what it was about, but because Judi Dench was in it. I will watch anything she is in, as I think she is amazing. As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, the film hits particularly hard as one watches it and sees what people endured.
Philomena’s example, what we have heard from her and her family’s Member of Parliament, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and Christina’s story, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), show just how significant an impact these events had on so many lives. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the Irish Government have taken responsibility, apologised and set up a compensation scheme to address the wrongs that occurred.
Let me address the Opposition spokesperson’s intervention on the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about those from Northern Ireland who spent time in mother and baby institutions. My understanding is that Northern Ireland is setting up its own scheme, but of course social security matters are devolved to its institutions. Whether Northern Ireland and the Republic establish a reciprocal agreement is a matter for them—such is the nature of devolution. I assure the hon. Lady that a scheme is in development.
Before securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which shows how strongly and passionately he cares about this issue. I assure him that both the Minister for pensions and the Minister for Social Security and Disability—I am sorry to disappoint everybody, but I am neither—are already carefully considering whether to legislate to disregard payment from Ireland’s mother and baby institutions payment scheme.
A decision on that has not yet been made, partly because, to answer the hon. Member for South West Devon, conversations are ongoing across the Government, with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials, as well as directly with the Irish Government, about whether it is possible and how it might work. It is raised at that level frequently, because of the historical relationship between the two nations. I realise that Members will be disappointed that I am unable to confirm today whether a scheme will be put in place.
Daisy Cooper
It is not unusual in this House for Ministers to say that things are actively under consideration. In a previous Parliament, I have been in this room when Ministers have said that repeatedly. If it is under active consideration, can the Minister please say when that might conclude? Is he in a position to give us a deadline today, or is he able instead to write to every Member that has contributed to this debate within the next 14 days with a deadline?
Andrew Western
I am going to disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, because I am unable to give her that assurance today. Conversations between the UK and Irish Governments, as well as conversations between Government Departments, are ongoing. I do not want to suggest that we are leaning one way or another, or that a decision is imminent.
The hon. Member for South West Devon set out how unprecedented a decision this would be. We regularly receive requests for scandals and issues that have happened in other countries to be considered for a disregard in this country. For instance, when the coalition Government were in power, the Magdalene Laundries was one such example where a disregard was not put in place. More recently, we saw this with the Australian child abuse scandal and with Gurkhas seeking a disregard to the 28-day rule around the allocation of pension credit.
This would be a significant change with broader ramifications, but that is not to say that we are not looking to take that change forward. Thought still needs to be given to this, and conversations need to continue. I am grateful to all Members for the opportunity to set out the current conversations, and to hear directly about people’s experiences.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the Minister for his response in relation to Northern Ireland, but I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Executive is just the postman for social benefits. The UK Parliament is sovereign. For something of this nature, given the small number it would impact and the small cost, I would want Northern Ireland to be part of the conversation from a UK-wide perspective, so that we go hand in hand, because constituents in Northern Ireland are as deserving as those here in GB.
Andrew Western
I do not want to openly disagree with the hon. Lady, but I gently say that social security matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, although of course it seeks alignment on issues wherever it is able to do so, and I welcome that. The fact that it is looking at its own scheme related to people from Northern Ireland who were in mother and baby institutions in Northern Ireland points to the flexibility within the devolved system. However, I accept the point that she makes about the importance of ensuring that, were the UK Government to apply a disregard, we would look to have conversations with the Northern Ireland Assembly about that also being applicable in its jurisdiction.
As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not just to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony about Christina’s story and more information about Philomena’s story.
Daisy Cooper
I know that the Minister is just about to respond to the fact that we have heard powerful testimony. I understand that he is not in a position to set out any deadlines today, so I implore him to make a different commitment. Will he please commit today, in front of the many people who have joined us, to use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between our constituents who are affected by this issue and the relevant Minister, so that they can speak directly to those in power who may be in a position to make decisions in due course? Will he please commit to doing everything he can to ensure that our constituents have their voices heard by those at the top?
Andrew Western
I will happily take that request back to the Department; clearly, it is a matter for the relevant Minister. However, I can perhaps liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who has led this campaign, to see whether such a meeting is possible, and I will happily update all Members on whether or not we are able to convene that meeting.
As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony. I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate, everyone who has come along to listen and everyone who agreed to have their story told. As I have said, no decision has been made yet. We are very much listening to those who have been impacted by this issue. It would be a significant change—setting a precedent—but none the less we are keen, as I have said, to continue talks with the Irish Government and across Government before coming to a decision on this matter.
Liam Conlon
I will sum up by paying tribute to the many excellent contributions this afternoon. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about the importance of film and culture in telling these stories. That was a reminder that this law is called Philomena’s law, because it was Philomena’s story that brought this issue to a global audience and really broke the mould by allowing people to discuss it. It lifted the cloud of secrecy and shame for so many. I offer a huge thank you to everyone involved in the film “Philomena”, not least Philomena herself for her courage in telling her story.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) spoke eloquently about the role of Irish community organisations, including Irish Community Services, which is in his constituency. Again, I thank those Irish community organisations, including Irish in Britain, that are represented here today.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke about the need for timely justice, especially given the age profile of survivors. I thank her for her support for Philomena and other survivors across Britain. In response to her question about whether we can facilitate a conversation with survivors to ensure that their voice is heard, we had an event in Parliament a couple of months ago, and it would be great to organise something similar and invite a Minister to attend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about trust in institutions more broadly, which was a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). She is right that there is now significant distrust among survivors as a result of what happened to them; these homes were state sponsored, as well as being sponsored by the church. It takes an incredibly long time to repair trust, and that is why the integrity of bodies such as the survivors’ advocate’s office is also important, because there we have people with lived experience leading the process and the way that it is administered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) spoke about her really powerful and personal connection to this issue, and about what could be learned in the future to prevent the dither and delay that we have seen around this issue from happening to other people in the years to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) shared the story of her constituent Christina Kavanagh, who is here this afternoon with us. I say to Christina, “It is a real honour to have you here.” It is a reminder that we should never forget the human picture in these discussions, because when we talk about numbers, behind every single number is a real person—a life. We are doing this for you, Christina, and for many others. I also thank my hon. Friend for being such a fantastic supporter of the brilliant Irish community in Luton.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made a really powerful contribution to the debate, with personal testimony about the long-term impact of the trauma this issue has caused families. That will continue for many years to come, both in Britain and in Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby was right to draw comparisons with Hillsborough, and he spoke of his support for a Hillsborough law. There is no greater champion of the Irish in Liverpool, which is sometimes referred to as the 33rd county of Ireland due to its fantastic population. I know he is a long-standing supporter of the Liverpool Irish centre, which has done amazing work in advocating for survivors, so I thank him for his support.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) was right to comment on the scale of the institutional abuse and its impact. In this House and this country, we often talk about the number of people killed during the troubles and the impact that had. Far more people—women and children—died in those institutions than were killed throughout the entirety of the troubles, and that casts a long shadow on Ireland and on people in Britain.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that wherever those people are, we need justice. That should know no borders. It is really important that the devolved institutions, central Government and local authorities work together to deliver that.
I thank the Minister for his remarks, for meeting me and for starting talks with the Irish Government and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this issue. It is really appreciated. He has been a fantastic champion of the Irish community in Stretford and Urmston and across Manchester. He is right to note the comments made by Minister Foley in the Irish Government. I had the pleasure of meeting her in Dublin over Easter. On a personal level, I really support the need for religious orders to step up in Ireland. The campaign has been led by our sister party in Ireland, the Irish Labour party. Importantly, Ivana Bacik, the leader of the Irish Labour party, has brought it forward to the Dáil and the Oireachtas, and I urge them to deliver justice for the victims.
I appreciate that we do not know exactly how many survivors are on means-tested benefits. I suggest that it is probably higher than for the average population, because a lot of those women were incredibly vulnerable when they came here, and a lot of them would have been incredibly isolated. A survivor told me that often the first thing that a person coming from Ireland to Britain would do was seek to join the community that they were part of in Ireland, but the women who left those institutions sought to be as far away from them as possible because of the shame that followed them. They wanted to build a new life, and in doing so they often became isolated, and they have had very difficult lives since. They were often very vulnerable at the time and remain very vulnerable today. Although we do not have a number, I expect that it will be higher than for the average population.
I appreciate that the UK Government are responsible for events, but they are also responsible for people. We are responsible for the large number of those women and children who have been living in Britain for many decades, so that should be our focus.
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, everyone who has come here this afternoon and everyone who has contacted me. I thank the more than 100 MPs and peers who signed an open letter on a cross-party basis in support of Philomena’s law. We have had support from public figures such as Steve Coogan and, today, “Derry Girls” star Siobhán McSweeney. I really appreciate it. I know we have a long road to travel on this campaign —hopefully, not too long—but I am determined that we will do that. I will keep campaigning until we do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of introducing a capital disregard for payments made to UK residents under the Republic of Ireland’s Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for people with ADHD.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I thank the Minister for being here for the debate.
Allow me to take Members through what ADHD diagnosis and treatment looks like in Oxfordshire. Say a 14 or 15-year-old boy is exhibiting symptoms of ADHD. They find themselves easily distracted at school. Their high energy levels are coming through in all the wrong ways; they talk noisily through class and find it hard to sit still.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. Does he agree that one fantastic way to support young people with ADHD and their teachers is to have universal screening for neurodiverse conditions at primary school and to increase teacher training on such conditions?
Freddie van Mierlo
My hon. Friend has been a fantastic advocate for people with neurodiverse conditions and I wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion.
Imagine a young girl who works hard to mask her symptoms just to get through the day. Her GP refers her to child and adolescent mental health services, but the waiting list is so long that the service is functionally irrelevant. She knows that by the time she gets seen, she will be 18 and so kicked out of CAMHS and into adult mental health services. But since February 2024, Oxford Health’s waiting list for adult assessment has been closed. It is a dead end—there is no service. For all intents and purposes, the NHS does not exist. In Oxfordshire, there were 2,385 on the waiting list in March, while capacity is 26 assessments a month. That means the waiting list is seven and a half years long. It is no wonder the list is closed and has become meaningless.
But suppose you are one of the lucky ones with a diagnosis and a treatment plan: guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence dictate that there should be an annual review of your condition. Your GP is told to continue to prescribe controlled medication, but then says they will do so only until your next annual review by a specialist. However, specialist reviews are not a commissioned service in Oxfordshire, so once someone hits this limit, their GP stops prescribing and their symptoms immediately worsen.
In July 2024, I started working on such a case—one of the first in my inbox. A constituent warned me that she was leaving CAMHS and would have no access to care. After her case was escalated to Oxford Health, it was negotiated with her GP that primary care would continue to prescribe until her next review was due. I had hoped that would buy us enough time to find a solution. In February, I was told by the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board that it would decide on reopening waiting lists for young people aged 18 to 25 in March. That would allow reviews for that cohort to take place again.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on a really big issue in Northern Ireland, where the waiting list for assessment is five years for children and eight years for adults. We have the added complication—I do not know whether this is the same in the rest of the UK—that schools will not accept a private diagnosis, so people are stuck. Something needs to be done for those who go down the private route so that their diagnoses are accepted at an earlier stage, rather than their having to go down the NHS route.
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Member makes an excellent point about the impact of going private. Far too many children—and the parents who pay—are forced into the private sector; the least we can do is make sure that that marries up properly with NHS provision.
March came and went, and only today I received a response from Dr Nick Broughton, the chief executive of the BOB ICB. He confirmed that the plan is still to fund a service for 18 to 25-year-olds, but he could commit only to a timeline of “Q3 2025”. I hope Members will forgive my scepticism about that coming to fruition. Again and again, dates for care have been pushed back, and they are contingent on everything going to plan. Luckily, my constituent is still getting the treatment she needs through the right to choose, but I understand that ICBs are going to be given the option to restrict that right—what happens then?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend is laying out many of the issues that my constituents face. He talked about his constituent using the right to choose. A number of my constituents have taken that route and got a diagnosis, but they cannot access medication because of the shared care model. That is a problem my constituent Helen raised with me—it is having a massive impact, and her ability to pay is being stretched. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to review the shared care model, so that those with an ADHD diagnosis can get the treatment they need?
Freddie van Mierlo
We absolutely need a review of how shared care works. If someone goes through a diagnosis and needs treatment for ADHD, or any other mental health or neurodivergent condition, the last thing they need is for barriers to be put in the way.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an important speech on behalf of his constituent. He mentioned the diagnosis process; I have seen in my casework that constituents in hard-to-reach communities find it difficult to navigate the ADHD process, and some appeal to the wrong groups for advice and information. Ultimately, they end up on the waiting list for even longer, because the people they reached out to were not the right ones. Does the hon. Member agree that Government and local authorities need to work together to provide targeted information to marginalised groups and hard-to-reach communities, so that people do not fall even further behind their privileged peers?
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Lady makes a point about local NHS bodies working together with central Government. Where is the accountability? No one is taking responsibility for patients, and they are suffering as a result. In what world is the NHS running on its founding principles when it comes to ADHD? The alternative to non-existent ADHD services in Oxfordshire and across the country is fully private care. This is a two-tier system baked into how we do health.
I am not naive. The healthcare professionals I have spoken to tell me that they are overwhelmed by a sudden large rise in ADHD cases.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent review conducted by King’s College London that looked at evidence from 40 studies in 17 countries? It found no clear evidence of an increase in the prevalence of ADHD; rather, there was greater awareness and acceptance, which was likely to cause more people to seek help and diagnosis.
Freddie van Mierlo
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that increased awareness of a condition naturally leads to an increase in the number of people seeking diagnosis. I believe the same was true of left-handedness when that became less of a taboo.
I am told that seeing every person who is on a waiting list could cost as much as £3 billion to £4 billion. We must therefore find a way to target urgent, psychiatrist-led care where it is most needed, and to triage early so that the most severe cases get support, along with those who are already taking powerful medication. To that end, I welcome and commend the Government on the launch of the taskforce in March 2024. From the discussions that I have had, however, I know that the communication with ICBs has not been good enough.
The initial data from the taskforce shows that an estimated 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, with more than half a million on waiting lists. To end this farce, we need a system that is adapted to manage the new volume of patients with appropriate levels of care. It does not help to say that there is an overdiagnosis of mental health conditions, as the Health Secretary has said; rather, we need to look at models that will diagnose and treat all patients using the most appropriate tool for their level of need. A good start would be to include ADHD in the 18-week pledge on first appointments. Currently, ADHD treatment is not considered a consultant-led area, even though GPs cannot diagnose. Waiting times should be defined by ICBs, with NICE guidance.
The consequences of getting it wrong are clear. ADHD is a leading cause of school exclusions, lower academic achievement and increased drop-out rates, and 25% of the UK prison population has ADHD, with untreated symptoms often driving impulsivity and crime. Untreated ADHD is also strongly linked to substance misuse, family breakdowns and severe mental health issues.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I speak as the mother of man who was not diagnosed with ADHD until he was 31. Fortunately for him, he has a very good employer who has made his life considerably easier than it might otherwise have been. However, I am appalled to have found out recently that great institutions such as the British Army, the RAF, the Royal Navy and the police actively discriminate against people with ADHD and simply will not employ them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply outrageous? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to change that?
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention and join her in that call.
For some constituents I have spoken to, it is simply a case of having access to a service that keeps their condition managed well, just as we provide for diabetes, thyroid conditions, hypertension and other chronic conditions. If we get that right, people with ADHD can get on with their lives, build families and bring in taxes for the Exchequer just like everyone else.
Before I finish, let me touch briefly on the severe ADHD medication shortage that so many Members have shown interest in. To my knowledge, the most acute need has now abated, and fortunately most of my constituents are getting the medications they need, but what plans do the Minister and the Government have so that it does not happen again? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this important debate on support for people with ADHD, and for sharing the experiences of his constituents in Oxfordshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman and others wrote to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) about many of the issues he raised today; I hope he found the Department’s response to that letter useful. I thank other colleagues for their interventions. These issues also affect my own constituents, and I see them in my inbox, so I understand their impact on families and communities.
First, we must be honest about the challenges. The Government inherited a broken NHS with too many patients facing long waits to access services, including ADHD assessments and support. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare that the growth in demand for ADHD assessments nationally has been so significant in recent years that it risks completely overwhelming the scarce resources available. The report also shows that, at current rates, it would take on average eight years to clear the backlog of adult ADHD assessments and that for many trusts the backlog would not be cleared for decades. We absolutely recognise the need to better understand the factors behind the rise in demand for services to ensure that we offer the right support.
The hon. Member for Henley and Thame asked why his trust has closed its waiting list. In preparing for the debate, I asked officials to give me a clearer understanding of what is happening in the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB, which saw a near 50% increase in referrals year on year between 2019 and 2024. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had contact with the chief executive. The trust felt that it could not cope with that level of demand because it viewed it as an unmanageable risk to patient safety and staff wellbeing. That is why it made the difficult decision to close the waiting list for new adult ADHD assessments in February last year. That was the trust’s decision.
As someone who worked in the system over the peak years of austerity—some people may remember them—I completely understand how trusts are often confronted with such decisions. The recent growth in demand seems quite exceptional. Integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services in line with the health and care needs of the people they serve. It is up to local decision makers to make tough choices, because they know the situation on the ground better than Ministers in Whitehall.
I understand that the ICB has established an ADHD programme steering group to stabilise its services, and it is working with local partners, including people with lived experience, to develop a new service model aimed at addressing health inequalities, providing a single-service model across the ICB, with a single provider, and providing support for people who do not benefit from medication. I understand that the trust is working to open a service for 18 to 25-year-olds as an interim measure to help those who transition from children and young people’s services to adult services, which we know is a difficult time in their lives. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will maintain a close watch on those commitments.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Following on from the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), I know that this is a devolved matter, but the issues are exactly the same in Northern Ireland as in GB, with long waiting lists and a lack of access to services. Does the Minister agree that people with ADHD are being discriminated against right across the United Kingdom because of the lack of access to services? Does she also agree that, in the interim, those who go for a private diagnosis should be able to enter into a shared care arrangement so that they can access the medication that assists them to function day to day, live normal lives and be part of our society?
Karin Smyth
I will come on to shared care agreements. As the hon. Member says, this is a devolved matter, and I am focusing on support for issues facing ADHD services in England and what we are doing to support trusts to get back on top of waiting lists and improve access to services.
First, NHS England has commissioned an independent ADHD taskforce, which is working to bring together those with lived experience and experts from the NHS, education, charity and justice sectors. The taskforce is developing a better understanding of the challenges affecting those with ADHD, including timely and equal access to services and support. I can confirm today—I know that this will be of interest to many hon. Members—that the taskforce will publish its interim findings shortly, with a final report expected after the summer recess. The interim report will helpfully focus on recommendations that support a needs-based approach, beyond just the health system, in which people can access support based on their needs, not their diagnosis. The report will also set out recommendations for support to be provided beyond medication, and by healthcare professionals other than specialists.
Secondly, NHS England recently published an ADHD data improvement plan to inform future service planning, and on 29 May it published management data on ADHD waiting lists. Thirdly, it has been capturing examples from ICBs that are trialling innovative ways of delivering ADHD services and using that information to support systems to tackle waiting lists and provide support.
Fourthly, as part of the Government’s five long-term missions, we have launched the 10-year plan to deliver the three big shifts that our NHS needs to be fit for the future: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. All those shifts are relevant to supporting people in all parts of the country with a range of conditions such as ADHD.
Fifthly, we are supporting innovation. Earlier this year, at a parliamentary event, many of us will have met innovators who are supported by NHS partners. I heard about the QbTest technology that complements the knowledge and skills of clinicians as part of the ADHD assessment process. I understand that 70% of NHS children’s ADHD services already use that technology, and the evidence suggests that it has a positive impact in making the assessment process swifter and simpler.
Freddie van Mierlo
Will the Minister comment on the fact that in Oxfordshire there is no commissioned service for the specialist reviews that NICE requires annually as a condition of being on the powerful medication? How can it be that someone can be started on medication but have no route to continue on it because they cannot get their annual review?
Karin Smyth
I am not aware of the detail of the pathway in the hon. Member’s ICB. I suggest that that is a matter for him to discuss with the ICB, which will have heard his question about how it is delivering those services on the ground.
Members raised issues around shared care agreements and the difficulties that people with ADHD are experiencing in accessing medication through such agreements, particularly when they have received a diagnosis through a private provider. It is the responsibility of secondary care specialists such as consultants, rather than GPs, to initiate treatment of ADHD. However, sometimes a shared care agreement, in which the GP takes over monthly prescriptions and routine monitoring once the patient is happy with their medication and dosage, can be put in place. The General Medical Council, which regulates and sets standards for doctors in the UK, has issued guidance to help GPs decide whether to accept shared care responsibilities for any condition. NHS clinicians need to be content that any prescriptions or referrals for treatment for any condition are clinically appropriate. All shared care arrangements are voluntary, so even where arrangements are in place, practices can decline shared care requests on clinical or capacity grounds.
If I may, Ms Jardine, I will take the opportunity to update the House on the supply of medicines, which has also been raised by colleagues; I understand that it was raised at business questions recently, too. The Government recognise the difficulties that some people have experienced with accessing ADHD medication due to medicine supplies. We know how worrying and frustrating those shortages are for patients and families. I am pleased to say that we have resolved many of the outstanding issues affecting the supply of lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine capsules, atomoxetine oral solution and guanfacine prolonged release tablets. However, some specific manufacturers continue to have issues with methylphenidate.
We continue to work with manufacturers to resolve remaining issues. In fact, I met the medicine supply team this morning, as I do very regularly, to make sure we are on top of these issues as much as we can be. The team is working hard to make sure that the situation improves. Where issues remain, we are directing suppliers to secure additional stocks, expedite deliveries where possible, and review plans to support continued growth in demand for the short and long term. We have worked with specialist clinicians during this time to provide comprehensive guidance to healthcare professionals where there is a disruption to supply. We keep the Specialist Pharmacy Service website up to date with the latest availability of ADHD medicines. I commend it to people listening to the debate and to hon. Members. It also provides comprehensive guidance on switching to alternative treatments, supporting clinicians to make informed choices with their patients.
I can assure colleagues that, as the Minister responsible for medicine supply, I will instruct officials to keep a close eye on this issue, so we do not see any of the progress we have made undone. I plan to hold an event, hopefully in Parliament and possibly in the autumn, to keep updating hon. Members on this issue, because I know it is one that concerns us all.
In closing, I want to address the young people who may be watching or tuning into the debate at home. I know it is tough for many neurodivergent kids today. You might be stuck on a waiting list, suffering at school or struggling to find your medicine. We really do care about this. We are trying to get to grips with some of the problems we found when we came into office, and I hope you will start to feel that progress within the next few years.
Rachel Gilmour
May I bring the Minister back to the subject of my earlier intervention? Will she, as a matter of urgency, take it up with the Home Secretary and get a decision? We should not discriminate against people with ADHD by preventing them from joining the services, whether it be the police, the Army, the Royal Navy or the RAF. I am so shocked about this I am like a dog with a bone—I cannot let it go.
Karin Smyth
I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a reply on that issue.
I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame for securing this important debate and for giving me the chance to put on the record some of the issues the Government are addressing. The Government know there is much more to be done to get better access to timely diagnosis and support for all our constituents, but I hope the actions I have set out today provide some reassure to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Mass Transit: West Yorkshire
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for mass transit in West Yorkshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Last week, I was delighted to have secured this debate, and the confirmation of its date came through just an hour before the news that the Government will indeed be investing £2.1 billion in West Yorkshire’s public transport, including more than £1 billion for a new tram in Leeds and Bradford, so I am now even happier to have secured it and to be leading it.
I will start with the background to that decision and explain why it is such a huge moment for my home city, Leeds, and for our home region of West Yorkshire. Leeds is currently the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system—that is such a well-known fact that if I had been given £1 every time I heard it, I could have personally financed the mass transit system 10 years ago, with spare change for a space programme—but transport aficionados and Members from my part of the world will know that that was not always the case. Leeds had a horse-drawn tram as early as 1871, and at its peak the network—which did not have horses by that time—had 476 trams and 124 miles of track. But while the horses did not leave us completely, the trams did. What had once been one of the largest urban transport systems in the UK was finally closed down, and in 1959 we saw the end of our tram system.
Leeds was often referred to as the “motorway city of the seventies”—I think that even appeared on a stamp—because we became entirely reliant on the car, which has held us back in some respects. There is only so much traffic that can be added to our roads before they have to be expanded, with new lanes added and traffic systems rethought—and often only for temporary benefit, before the next solution has to be considered. To their credit, policymakers and politicians figured that out—it is not something that we have just come to ourselves.
Trams can carry approximately four times as many passengers as a typical bus, and they massively increase the transport capacity of any region. They are versatile and can run alongside road networks where needed, because they can be segregated from traffic to avoid congestion and improve journey times for passengers. Trams are also very consistent. That is why politicians have tried multiple times, without success, to bring mass transit back to Leeds.
We have had everything: plans for trams; a trolleybus scheme; an elevated railway that was not dissimilar to the monorail in an episode of “The Simpsons”; and even, if we care to go back far enough, an underground proposal. That has left some people in my city highly sceptical of the announcement last week, because we have been burned too many times.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this welcome debate. I spoke to him earlier, and I know that this has been a passion of his since before he became an MP. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I am sure she will not let him down when she replies—no pressure, Minister! Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these transportation routes and hubs, which residents in London take for granted, take decades to build, but without sustained investment they are simply dreams? Does he also agree that Government and the Minister need to commit substantially to projects and give a small slice of the Budget to achieving them without onerous conditions?
Mark Sewards
I thank the hon. Member for his incredibly timely contribution—I could not agree more.
One reason that some residents of Leeds were sceptical last week was the repeated failures of previous Governments of different colours to deliver the transport improvements that we know we deserve. I am here to say that this time it is different. The money for the tram system has been committed and announced by the Government, in conjunction with the combined authority. The obstacles have been removed, and I will spend the rest of my time as the Member of Parliament for Leeds South West and Morley ensuring that the system is actually built.
The system will provide the boost that Leeds needs to compete with other major cities in the UK that already have their mass transit systems in place—but we have some things that they do not. As well as a newly promoted Premier League team, we can already boast the largest financial and professional service sectors outside London and the highest rate of growing businesses outside the capital, depending on how that rate is measured. The mass transit system will help us to supercharge these sectors, and more, once it is finally completed.
The funding provided by the Government allows for construction of phase 1 of this scheme—I will give just a bit of information on phase 1 for those who are not familiar with it. It provides two main tram lines. We have the Bradford line, which connects Leeds city centre to Bradford city centre, with an option to connect through Wortley too. I am very much advocating for that option, since Wortley is in my constituency—and not just because there would be a stop right next to my house.
The second line is the Leeds line, which has the potential to connect our hospitals, Leeds railway station, Elland Road stadium and the White Rose shopping centre to each other. I am also very excited about the White Rose stop, which is the confirmed stop for that line; although the rest of the stops are out for consultation, all lines finish at the White Rose. The shopping centre is in my constituency, and I spent much of my early life there, working there throughout my A-levels and university, so I know what it will mean for jobs in my constituency and what it will mean for the communities I represent if we are able to link them up under this unified transport system with the tram in the White Rose centre. It is a really important move for our region and for my constituency.
While I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, I am very hopeful for phase 2 of the plans. Phase 2 should connect more locations in our region directly to the network, allowing many more constituencies to feel the full benefits of a mass transit system on their doorstep. It is clearly important that not only Leeds and Bradford, but the whole of west Yorkshire should benefit from these plans.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I am determined to find solutions for growth in our region, and so is every member of the APPG. Mass transit is key to achieving that, and it has certainly been popular among residents and businesses in west Yorkshire. The combined authority spent a bit of time last year speaking with individuals and businesses across our region—5,000 in total. Two thirds of those they surveyed backed the Bradford line and three quarters backed the Leeds line—so mass transit is extremely welcome. The two lines will improve transport for nearly 675,000 people.
All this would not have been possible without the tireless work and commitment of Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire. Tracy has been the strongest advocate for mass transit in our region ever since she took office. It formed a key part of her manifesto last year and now she is delivering on that promise. Her fierce desire to grow our local economy and to build infrastructure that benefits everyone in west Yorkshire is an inspiration. Her efforts mean that we can take advantage of devolution in full. The transport scheme is part of the local growth plan and will see the creation of about 33,000 new jobs, new homes and about £26 billion of extra growth in our region over the next decade.
I must also make a commitment to the Weaver network, because our brand-new franchised and integrated transport system is key to that network. It would be remiss of me not to state how pleased I am that all our buses are being brought back into public control under one banner from 2027 onwards. Although the tram will bring the huge benefits that I have already spoken about, our buses are just as important. In my constituency, the Ardsley and Robin Hood ward is very poorly served by the current bus arrangements. I will work with Tracy Brabin to change that, because, sadly, it is not just true for Ardsley and Robin Hood, but for many routes and networks across my constituency. The Weaver network will connect that franchise bus network with our trams and our train services, as well as linking up with active travel routes. It is the unified transport system that our region deserves.
Before I conclude, I thank all my colleagues who have contributed to the campaign to secure a tram network for west Yorkshire. I also thank my constituency neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Her support for this project has been consistent and it has been incredibly welcome.
We know that this investment is a vote of confidence in west Yorkshire. It is a vote of confidence from the Government; they know how much we have to offer and how much potential our region has. It is just the start of our plans to unlock our region’s potential.
I have some questions for the Minister to consider. Can the Government confirm that the funding provided to the combined authority will be flexible and will allow phase 1 to be built in full? How will they work with the combined authority to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver this infrastructure? What is their latest assessment of the economic benefits that the project will bring to West Yorkshire? How do they envisage working alongside the combined authority to take advantage of the opportunities created by our mass transit system once it is completed? Are they as optimistic as I am that the case for any second phase of the project will be even stronger once the impacts from the first phase are felt? I will be very grateful if the Minister takes those questions into account when she delivers her closing remarks.
I put on the record my thanks and appreciation to all those who share our region’s ambition, and everyone who has supported this project. It gives me great pleasure to say that we will have spades in the ground for the tram in 2028, and that finally—finally—it is time for trams in West Yorkshire.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Jardine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for securing this important and timely debate. After years of waiting, we are finally getting a mass transit network worthy of a great world city, thanks to the Government’s support for West Yorkshire transport and the tireless efforts of our Labour Mayor, Tracy Brabin. This investment must benefit everyone, including my constituents in Leeds North West. Let us make sure there are no delays in moving from phase 1 to phase 2, establishing strong connections across our region.
Leeds Bradford airport is welcoming thousands of travellers this summer with a new terminal, offering a more comfortable start to their holidays, but it remains poorly served by public transport and has no proper rail link to the city centre and communities. As we embrace mass transit, we must seize the opportunities to connect the airport to the network, ensuring that the Weaver network is ready for take-off with no delays.
Beyond those large-scale projects, our communities need reliable, affordable bus services, as my hon. Friend said. Towns and villages such as Otley and Pool-in-Wharfedale deserve fast, frequent connections, and those heading to Horsforth—recently and rightly voted one of the best places to live in the UK—should not have to rely on taxis for a night out. That is why I support the moves by the Government and the combined authority to bring our buses back into public ownership, and I will back national and local efforts to make that happen.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate on such an important topic.
The recent announcement of local transport investment marks a significant milestone for West Yorkshire—particularly the long-awaited mass transit system, which will finally bring trams back to the region. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a mass transit network across Leeds and West Yorkshire; as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without one, so the funding is very welcome.
Transport challenges do not stop at city boundaries, however. People’s lives span towns, villages and rural areas, and so must the solutions. We need a truly Yorkshire-wide approach that encourages cross-boundary collaboration, unlocks regional growth and serves all communities, not just urban cores. In that spirit, I want to focus on the fantastic work of Liberal Democrat councillors across West Yorkshire, who have been campaigning tirelessly on public transport issues over a number of years.
To wind the clock back a bit, I was at one point a West Yorkshire Liberal Democrat councillor. Interestingly, at that point in time, my council ward was wrapped around on three sides by North Yorkshire. I was raised in West Yorkshire, but educated at Selby college, so I know all too well the issues with cross-boundary transit. Therefore, while the Liberal Democrats and I welcome this new funding, a proper Yorkshire-wide approach is key to ensuring that infrastructure does not end at those arbitrary lines.
Let us look around West Yorkshire: councillors on the ground in Bradford, including Jeanette Sunderland, have been campaigning for over a decade to improve bus connections to Apperley Bridge rail station—a vital link that is still missing for over 15,000 homes. Without it, many are cut off from easy rail access, limiting opportunities for work and education. Councillor Brendan Stubbs has rightly been calling for urgent action to secure funding for a new Bradford bus station. The current station, as we know, is crumbling and unsafe, and new facilities must integrate effectively with the proposed tram network to serve Bradford’s future needs.
In Kirklees, local councillors John Lawson and Baroness Pinnock have raised concerns about the Dewsbury-Cleckheaton bus lane proposals. Objections are focused mainly on safety risks, disruption from construction and potential congestion. Many argue that simpler, lower-cost measures, such as improved traffic light control and enhanced bus reliability, would provide better value for money and cause less disruption.
Turning to the White Rose shopping centre that the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned, I think it is good that announcements have been made for phase 1. My concern is that the work on the train station there was already under way, but it was paused after it went over budget of the £26 million originally anticipated. If we are being honest, there has been a bit of a face-saving exercise put on by the combined authority.
Mark Sewards
I appreciate that time is short. We are making good progress on getting the paused White Rose train station, based on Churwell Hill, restarted. I have been working very closely with the combined authority to ensure that that station is built, and I am pleased to say it will be soon.
Tom Gordon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his campaigning on that issue, but I return to the point that we need a comprehensive integrated transport network that links up everything. What we have seen previously is a piecemeal approach that has not necessarily thought through how we would go about something like this. While it is welcome that it is on the way to being resolved, it is a damning indictment of the situation up until now.
The funding announced is exactly the same as that announced under the previous Conservative Government —to the penny, so I question whether it is new funding or just a repackaging and reallocation of existing funding. I am sure the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will pick up on that point; he almost certainly will.
Turning to the work of the combined authority and the West Yorkshire Mayor: back when I was a councillor in Wakefield, we voted on the agreement to enter that authority. In that consultation, the only local authority in West Yorkshire that did not want to enter a combined authority or have a regional mayor was Wakefield, principally because it had previously been asked if it wanted a mayor and had voted against it. There were also concerns about powers being sucked up from local authorities to a new combined authority.
Speaking to local councillors across the piece, there is still scepticism about whether that is happening or whether the resulting transport decisions have been in the interests of everyone in all corners of West Yorkshire. The new mayor promised to fix the buses in her first term and she ran her re-election campaign based on that, so I think there are questions to be answered there.
When we look further afield, we have issues with rail links out of Leeds into other places across county boundaries, such as Harrogate and Knaresborough, with that link between Harrogate and York. While it is welcome that funding has been announced for West Yorkshire, we did not get a single penny for North Yorkshire under the Labour mayor, David Skaith.
Rounding up in the interests of time, we want to see a properly integrated transport plan with proper funding—a Transport for Yorkshire approach to make sure that no one is left behind.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As everyone else has done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate.
West Yorkshire and the city of Leeds have long been underserved by transport connections; that is common ground across this Chamber. Research from the Centre for Cities in 2022 found that just 38% of the population can reach the city centre within 30 minutes by public transport. That is a very low percentage for a city the size of Leeds.
As the former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made clear in his 2024 policy paper, that leads to below-average productivity in the area, and a critical catalyst for improvement must be better transport connections. The hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley was also right to allude to a long history of promises, half promises, schemes and plans to improve transport in Leeds, going back many decades. He was generous enough to say that it was a failure of Governments of multiple different colours.
I will go back just to the 2000s, when there was the supertram proposal, which the hon. Member might remember. It was a 17-mile system with 50 stations, but it was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005 because of cost overruns. In the interests of time, I will not read out the juicy quote from the leader of Leeds Council, but I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with it. In 2007, that proposal was replaced by the bus rapid transport scheme with FTR. That had some of the benefits of the supertram, but with lower initial capital costs, and it was replaced in 2012 by Wright StreetCars. Also in 2012, the trolleybus network proposal was approved by the Government. The scheme was allocated £173 million of public money to be in operation by 2018. From memory, it involved two park and rides and a bus system into the city centre. That, in its turn, was dropped in 2016—again, because of cost overruns and delays.
Then we jump forward to 2021, to the West Midlands combined authority and the mass transit scheme with light rail and tram-trains, or bus rapid transport. I am pleased to say that in 2023, it was given the go-ahead by the Conservative Government of the time, and £2.5 billion was allocated for the mass transit system, funded in full for Leeds and West Yorkshire by the Secretary of State’s predecessor Mark Harper. That was a firm commitment supported by the Treasury at the time.
On last week’s announcement by the Chancellor of £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, I can see how the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley might feel a little sceptical—they have been burned more than once. The plan now is to get the spades in the ground in 2028. It is almost as good as the previous Conservative Government’s plan, which was to get spades in the ground in 2027. The number is remarkably similar to what was then Network North policy.
It is worth looking at the numbers. In 2023, it was announced that £2.115 billion would be allocated, so it was a bit of a surprise that last week it was £2.1 billion. The Chancellor has knocked off 15 million quid, but it is absolutely a re-announcement of existing policy.
Katie White
Does the hon. Member agree that although those announcements were made, like many other announcements, such as those on hospitals, they were never funded, and so the Treasury never allocated the money to them. He is right that there was a similar intention, but we are fulfilling on the delivery of that intention.
Jerome Mayhew
The answer is that this is spending from 2026 to 2031, so of course we do not have the allocation in 2023. We will have it in 2026, however, and it is part of the Government funding process. If the hon. Lady asks me where that money is coming from, it is from the savings made through the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. In rail terms, that was £19.6 billion.
Tom Gordon
On that point, I had an interesting interaction with the Secretary of State for Transport. I asked her about the reallocation of that HS2 money, and she referred to it as “fantasy money”. What does the hon. Gentleman say to the point that it is a reallocation of money that the Secretary of State says did not exist?
Jerome Mayhew
That is an interesting point. If it is fantasy money, this is a fantasy announcement from last week. I suspect that the Treasury has realised that it is not fantasy money. It is the scheduling of capital expenditure in five-year periods, a bit like we have with road networks and the road investment strategy. In the RIS system we have a five-year forward allocation of resources, and this is just the same, so there is a little political sleight of hand here.
A report by Steer suggests that a light rail vehicle with a capacity of 200 operating every three minutes can carry up to 4,000 people per hour in each direction. That is equivalent to about 50 fully laden buses. The aim now is to get it up and running in the mid-2030s. But if the past is any guide, the biggest risk to the project is delay and cost overruns. With that in mind, I ask the Minister these questions. What steps is she taking to ensure that costs are contained and deadlines do not slip? Has the West Yorkshire combined authority set out a timeline for the environmental and technical work to enable the development to proceed on time? Can she outline what discussions she has had with the mayor to ensure that upgrades to heavy rail infrastructure, such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, are fully integrated? Can she provide assurances that tomorrow’s transport budget will not see cuts in other areas? Will this scheme actually be delivered? We shall wait and see. I certainly wish it well, but I understand why the residents of West Yorkshire feel sceptical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this timely debate and on his passionate words in support of his city and region.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s support for West Yorkshire’s ambitions and why we are committed to working hand in hand with local leaders to deliver transformational change. West Yorkshire is a region with enormous potential. Home to 2.4 million people and a £67 billion economy, it contains some of the fastest growing towns and cities in the country. However, it also faces significant socioeconomic challenges. Productivity has lagged behind the national average for 15 years. Too many people still live in areas of persistent deprivation, and poor connectivity is holding back housing, regeneration and access to opportunities. Around one in five people in West Yorkshire live in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods nationally.
Improving transport connectivity is key to unlocking growth across West Yorkshire. Better links between Leeds and Bradford—just 9 miles apart—will help to reduce reliance on car travel, which currently accounts for 74% of journeys.
Lilian Greenwood
I am very conscious of time, and I want to make a bit more progress.
Leeds remains the largest city in western Europe without a mass transit system. For a city of its scale, potential and ambition, that is unsustainable. That is why Government intervention is vital and why we are already acting. We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders and communities to build a modern, integrated mass transit network. Those ambitions, as we have heard, stretch back years, but setbacks have not weakened the determination, and I commend Mayor Tracy Brabin and the West Yorkshire combined authority for their persistence and vision.
The Government have backed the ambitions with real support and real money: £200 million has already been provided in development funding, to enable the combined authority to progress its plans. That includes a £160 million allocation from the first city region sustainable transport settlement. Now, I am pleased to confirm that the support is growing under the new funding settlement announced last week. As a Government, we have made a £15.6 billion commitment to improving local transport across the north and the midlands, to be delivered through transport for city regions settlements. Between 2027 and 2032, West Yorkshire will receive an impressive £2.1 billion—a strong vote of confidence in the region’s plans.
It is right that prioritising use of the funding will be for West Yorkshire to decide on, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) will be making the case for improved transport connectivity, including to Leeds Bradford airport. We are bringing £30 million of transport for city regions funding forward into the next two financial years, to support early preparation and delivery of schemes. Most importantly, the combined authority has confirmed that this funding will enable the delivery of phase 1 of West Yorkshire mass transit, connecting Bradford and Leeds city centres, to begin. Mayor Tracy Brabin is keen to have spades in the ground from 2028. Of course, the period beyond 2032 is for a future spending review. Beyond mass transit, TCR funding will also support a new bus station in Wakefield to replace the existing facility, and a modern bus station replacement for Bradford interchange, expanding services and improving reliability across the region.
Our support extends beyond finance. With West Yorkshire combined authority, we have put in place a new model for working together. It features a joint sponsor board and close collaboration between Government officials and the combined authority. We are working side by side to progress at pace, align with national priorities and support delivery, so hopefully there will not be the kinds of hold-up that we have seen in the past.
The prize and the benefits of mass transit to West Yorkshire are clear. It will improve local transport for over 675,000 people, many of whom are from communities currently disconnected from opportunity. It will reduce congestion, cut carbon emissions and enable access to jobs, education and services, especially for those who do not have a car. It will support transformational regeneration, housing and growth, particularly in areas such as central Bradford that have previously been overlooked for major investment.
The scheme complements wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and bus franchising. We welcome the introduction of the Weaver network, which will mean a single brand across the transport network in West Yorkshire and will make transport easier and more accessible for passengers. Together, those efforts will build a modern, integrated public transport system worthy of this growing city region, which is central to the growth ambitions of the Government and the country.
Looking ahead, we will continue close collaboration with the combined authority to move from planning to delivery. Key milestones include submission of the strategic outline business case for approval in 2026, when many of the questions that have been posed in the debate will be explored and fulfilled; route consultations; and the development of a growth prospectus to maximise the economic benefits of mass transit in West Yorkshire. That will include an employment and skills action plan to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver the programme. Our shared ambition is to see spades in the ground in 2028, and I assure Members that the Department is fully committed to enabling that ambitious timeline.
The Government back West Yorkshire’s mass transit ambitions because better transport means better lives, safer journeys, cleaner air, more opportunities and stronger communities. I once again congratulate my hon. Friends on their support and advocacy for this absolutely vital investment. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) nodding along with that. The West Yorkshire region has huge potential, and this Government will give it our backing into the future.
Mark Sewards
The Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) tempted me to make interventions, but I resisted then and I will resist now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for mass transit in West Yorkshire.
NHS Cervical Screening Programme
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to inform the House that I have accepted the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation to further risk stratify the cervical screening programme in England. This increases the opportunities to test and recall women and people with a cervix who have human papillomavirus (HPV) while extending the cervical screening intervals from three to five years in England for individuals who have a negative HPV test. This will bring England’s cervical screening intervals in line with those of Wales and Scotland.
The NHS cervical screening programme in England provides all women between the ages of 25 and 64 with the opportunity to be screened routinely to detect HPV infection or cervical abnormalities at an early, more treatable stage. The aim of the programme is to reduce the number of women who develop invasive cervical cancer and reduce the number who die from it.
Cervical screening does not test for cancer; it is a step before which helps to detect the risk of developing cervical cancer. This is because since December 2019, the primary screen in the NHS cervical screening programme has been a test to detect high-risk HPV which causes nearly all cervical cancers. A negative screen for HPV means that the chances of developing a cancer within five years are very small, as it can take around 10 years or more from the time HPV is detected to developing cervical cancer.
Those who test positive for HPV are already being followed up with yearly testing. This is important to ensure that individuals are monitored for any early signs of cervical abnormalities and provided the necessary treatment.
Because HPV testing is a more accurate and highly sensitive screening test, which detects the risk of developing cervical cancer before it develops, we are able to screen people based on their individual risk rather than just their age. This means reducing how often people who are HPV negative are screened, while concentrating efforts on more frequent screening for those that need it. This is a positive step as women do not have to undergo unnecessary testing and the associated anxiety that can be experienced.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the UK National Screening Committee for continuing to provide invaluable expert advice on the introduction of new screening programmes and modifications to existing ones, and especially on achieving the right balance between benefit and harms.
I would also like to pay tribute to and thank all those who work to deliver high quality and safe screening across the country.
[HCWS691]
Automated Vehicles Act 2024: Implementation
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I wish to provide the House with an update on steps the Government are taking to implement the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and kick-start economic growth, a top priority in the Government’s plan for change. The AV Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind anywhere in the world, with safety at its core, which will give potential operators, tech developers and manufacturers the confidence to invest in the UK. It sets out clear legal responsibilities so businesses know where they stand, establishes a safety framework and creates the necessary regulatory powers. The AV Act implementation programme has been designed to maximise innovation, enabling investors and operators to develop and deploy the creative mobility solutions that can drive growth. This comes as part of a Government-wide programme of work using artificial intelligence to deliver the plan for change, with AVs being a clear example of how AI will bring tangible benefits to the public.
Automated passenger services
Today I can announce that the Government will accelerate the introduction of automated passenger services regulations, subject to the outcome of a consultation later this summer. This will provide businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in testing and deploying these innovative services on our streets, reinforcing the UK’s position among the world leaders in tech deployment. It will help facilitate commercial pilots of services with paying passengers and no safety driver to be deployed from spring 2026.
The APS permitting regime was created to address the complexities of applying current taxi, private hire vehicle and public service vehicle legislation to passenger services that would operate without a driver.
Protecting marketing terms for AVs
Today, I launched a consultation, and an accompanying draft statutory instrument, on protecting marketing terms for AVs; the consultation will run for 12 weeks. The AV Act sets out an authorisation process to determine whether a vehicle can safely drive itself without being controlled or monitored by a human. We want to support the innovators and businesses that are building genuinely groundbreaking tech by protecting certain terms, so that they can only be used to describe authorised self-driving vehicles, boosting investor confidence, consumer trust and driver certainty.
This consultation aims to identify the words, expressions, symbols or marks that should be used to describe only authorised AVs. The Government expect to bring forward secondary legislation following careful consideration of consultation responses. Our aim is for these regulations to come into effect in early 2026; they will be subject to the negative procedure.
Statement of safety principles for AVs
Today, I have published a call for evidence on the statement of safety principles, which will consider the safety outcomes that should be sought by self-driving vehicles; the call for evidence will also run for 12 weeks. Public confidence in the safety of these vehicles will be essential to take advantage of the huge economic opportunities they will present. The Department for Transport’s monitoring and annual reporting will consider performance against these principles. The AV Act specifies that the safety principles must be framed with a view to ensuring that authorised AVs achieve a safety level equal to or higher than careful and competent human drivers, and that road safety in Great Britain will improve due to the presence of these vehicles.
I intend to publish a further consultation on the statutory principles in the coming months that will be informed by stakeholder feedback from this call for evidence. The final statutory guidance will be laid in Parliament and will be subject to parliamentary approval.
Transport AI action plan
The announcements made today are a cornerstone of the Department’s new transport AI action plan. This publication is a 23-point plan that sets out how the Government are using AI to improve transport for everyone in the UK. The plan builds upon the transport data strategy and the AI opportunities action plan to align the transport sector with the broader AI agenda, drive economic growth and deliver on the plan for change.
A copy of these publications and associated annexes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS692]
Driving Test Delays
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce delays in taking a driving test.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government continue to work hard to tackle car practical driving test waiting times. They provided 1.95 million tests last year and have so far recruited a further 170 driving examiners nationally, but further action is needed. In April, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced further measures to tackle the test backlog. This included DVSA’s fast-track consultation on improving test booking rules, launched on 28 May, to prevent learner drivers being charged excessive fees and to combat test-buying bots.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister may recall our earlier exchange on the subject, when he said:
“The real answer is to reduce the length of time it takes to get a test. Currently in England, it is nearly 21 weeks. The Government have a target to reduce that to seven weeks by the end of December this year”.—[Official Report, 13/1/25; col. 909.]
Since then, waiting times have gone up, the December target has moved back to summer next year and, recently, the 60-plus driving test centres in and around London had no slots available at all. Into this chaos, we now have ticket touts using bots to hoover up the available slots at £62 a time and then reselling them to desperate learner drivers for £200 or more. This is not selling tickets for Glastonbury; this is a government service for people who need to drive to get to work. The only people who should book tests are those who want to take them, and if they cannot take the test, the slot should go back to the DVSA. This is a racket ripping off learner drivers. Why do the Government not stop it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s inheritance in this matter was that, as of July 2024, there were 532,782 car practical driving tests booked. That number has gone up, as the noble Lord remarks, but the series of actions taken by this Government is far greater than any set of actions taken by the previous Government—in fact, I cannot find any actions taken by them, other than two disputes with driving examiners, which pushed down the number of tests. This Government have done several things, and the consultation I referred to previously, launched a few days ago, is about putting a stop to the exploitation of learner drivers. The previous Government could have done more, but this Government are doing it now.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister outline whether the Government are considering using AI to better detect and block bot-driven booking abuse; for example, monitoring booking patterns and identifying suspicious activity in real time to help prevent bots monopolising test availability?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government are using modern technology to do just that. As a result of some of the actions taken since the Government took office, there has been a further number of warnings, suspensions and closed accounts. That is a consequence of monitoring what is going on. However, it has to be said that the people who use the bots are always one step ahead, so the consultation launched recently is about changing some of the rules to make sure it is not worth using bots. We have to make sure that people who want to book tests themselves, and driving instructors and the businesses they run, both have the opportunity of booking tests so as to get people working and contributing to the economy.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, having listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to my noble friend Lord Young, I will make two points. First, when we left office, we had reduced the backlog from a 20-week delay at its peak to 15 weeks. Since then, it has got worse, not better. Secondly, if the Minister looks more carefully in his folder, he will see that we did have a comprehensive plan, with a number of steps that we took—remarkably similar to the steps that the Government themselves have laid out—and that had some success in bringing down that backlog. The simple question to the Minister is: why has it got worse on his watch?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I welcome another former Secretary of State for Transport to the House, and I look forward to my interactions with him. Looking back at the numbers of tests booked, in fact he is right: there was a modest change from 2023 to 2024. The 2023 figure was 548,000 tests and the 2024 figure was 532,000. This is not an easy issue to solve, and the truth is that behaviours have changed, but what we are concentrating on here is a series of measures, including the latest consultation—which was clearly not planned by the previous Government because it is as a result of the call for evidence from December last year, which had 27,000 responses. This fast-track consultation is about changing the rules to make sure that people who try to profit through bots do not succeed.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the last time we discussed this question in your Lordships’ House, I told the House how I had personal experience from a member of my family on this issue, who paid way over the odds to get a timely test. While I welcome the consultation that the Minister described, can he also say something about what the Government are doing to recruit more driving examiners so that more slots can be made available? The secondary market is thriving because what ought to be a government service that is easily available is not.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. Of course, it is not right that people should be paying a premium for something that is a public service. Since July 2024, 287 recruits have been taken on board and started a training course, of which 170 have completed training successfully, 74 failed to complete the course and 43 are in training, and a further 178 are either booked for a training start or are in pre-employment checks after accepting an offer. The Government are working hard to increase the number of tests, but, as I said previously, people’s behaviour is changing: because they know that currently it is quite difficult, they are booking the test almost when they start and get a provisional licence. We have to increase the number of tests available through having more driving examiners—and there is more work yet to do to increase the number of people who can train and test prospective driving examiners—but we also have to do things to the booking system to reduce the prevalence of bots being successful.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, how does that figure for driving instructors compare with the 450 that, in January, the Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and pledged to recruit with a view to eliminating the problem by December?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, if the noble Lord adds the 287 who have been taken on board and started the training course to the future training pipeline of 178, I think he will see that it gives 465, which is extraordinarily close to the figure that I cited last time.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
If we had proceeded with identity cards, some of the fiddling which is now taking place would never have been able to happen. Is it not a great regret that the coalition Government and the two parties opposite abandoned that, and is it not time that when we come round again to review our position on immigration right across the board, we need to return to looking at identity cards?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I would defer to my noble friend Lord Hanson, sitting next to me, who probably has a far greater grasp of whether that is a good thing to do. In a sense, I am not sure that that will help here, because the one thing that you must have to book a driving test is a provisional driving licence, and with that you get an identity. The difficulty is not that the original bookers do not have an identity; it is the test being swapped around—in some cases, several times, up to 10 times—and not being able to be utilised in the end by people who need them.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I completely appreciate that my noble friend is trying to clear up the mess that he was left with, but is he aware of a problem whereby for those who have passed the theory test, because of the delays in getting the practical test, the passing of the theory test runs out? Is this something that he is aware of, and could he look at extending the validity of the theory test so that when people get the practical test, they do not have to pay twice for the theory test?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that; I am aware of this. What we must not do in all this is reduce the safety content. The rule about theory tests and their expiry after two years is designed to make sure that when you take a practical test, you have a really up-to-date grasp of the basics of road safety and driving. The Government are not currently planning to relax that. The solution, which we have talked about already, is to have more tests with more examiners and more people training examiners in order for people to be able to get their test faster.
Corporate Liquidations
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the reported rise in corporate liquidations in the year to 31 March 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in the year to 31 March 2025, total corporate liquidations rose by 8%. This increase was driven by a 36% jump in solvent liquidations, while insolvent liquidations fell by 3%. The current corporation insolvency rate remains less than half what it was during the 2008-09 recession. Businesses go into liquidation for various reasons—tight cash flow, falling sales and loss of market share to online rivals—but no single factor dominates. Compulsory liquidations have increased mainly due to the increase in winding-up petitions from creditors, mainly from HMRC.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The Minister is right: in fact, more than 2,000 businesses have faced winding-up petitions this year, the highest rate since 2012. Today, we learn that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 274,000 over the past year, and most worryingly by 109,000 just this month past. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has predicted that eye-watering costs to business, particularly tax costs, will lead to more job losses. Does the Minister agree with me that as every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Noble Lords may groan. As every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office, now is the time to reduce tax, which is at an all-time record high for businesses, particularly SMEs, before the next election.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, of course these are disappointing figures, but six months after launching Get Britain Working we are seeing real results, with economic activity at a record high, half a million more people in jobs since we took office and real wages having grown more since July than at any other time in the last decade. It is also worth noting that the latest GDP figures tell a very different story, up 7% in Q1 of this year, showing the UK economy’s resilience and potential. These indicators suggest a labour market that remains robust and responsive, not one that is being held back.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what was worrying about the liquidation numbers in 2024 was the increase in compulsory liquidations? That came ahead of the NICs increases, so it is a real red flag. The businesses that I speak to are desperately depending on the industrial strategy to restore their prospects. Can the Minister assure the House that the IS will include a focus on small businesses, including opportunities for government procurement? Will the Government reverse their policy of demanding that SMEs cede ownership of their intellectual property if they enter into even a small government contract?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will publish our industrial strategy very soon, and it will definitely cover SMEs. As I mentioned earlier, compulsory liquidation is not something new. Companies go bust. We have seen big companies fail. Failure is a reality of business. Even major firms such as Ted Baker, The Body Shop and Wilko have collapsed. We should be thinking about how to support these corporate failures. We must have a more robust system, whether it is the credit system that needs reforming or even British banks. We must incorporate the American culture. Yes, we have to address failures, but more important is how we get up, dust ourselves down and get on to the business market again.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of these business closures, particularly for SMEs—where payroll is their largest expense—were triggered not only by the scheduled increase in NICs but by the steep hikes in the national minimum wage? As the noble Lord pointed out, this was demonstrated by the very disturbing falls in payrolled staff and vacancies reported by the ONS. The resulting squeeze on their cash flow may cause a further spike in the rate of liquidations through Q2 and Q3. How does this sit with the Government’s claim to have “restored economic stability”?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting observation that I do not share. First, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that NICs or business rates changes are primary reasons for any of these closures in the UK. I can give examples of businesses that are doing very well. Let us look at the hospitality business. I just looked at the latest results for JD Wetherspoon, which had revenue of £2.2 billion and EBITDA of £19.28 million. Stonegate, one of the largest pub companies in the UK, had revenue of £1.75 billion and EBITDA of £394 million. These are not companies that are in trouble. The picture is mixed. Yes, we have some contraction in the business sector, but businesses are thriving. Do not listen to me. Listen to people such as the president of Blackstone, who this week said:
“I would give the UK Government a lot of credit for embracing business”.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that under the last Government we nearly had bankruptcy in the economy, we had very low levels of growth and we had poverty wages? Is it not time for them to have a period of silence?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. All I can say is that in my long years of business I have learned one thing. Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity. If companies keep chasing turnover without the support of working capital, they will be on the first and pretty fast step to failure.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, first, does the Minister accept that the spike in voluntary closures is directly linked to the Government’s decision to hike the entrepreneurs’ exit tax from 10% to 14%—soon to go up to 18%—as well as increases in capital gains tax, which are prompting many owners to race for the exit?
Separately, in answering a question earlier he relied heavily on GDP figures, which will be small comfort to those people who have lost their jobs, but I think I heard him say 7% growth. I do not think that is right—would he care to correct the record?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Apologies; it is 0.7% growth. I thank the noble Lord for that. At the end of the day, what is really important is that we have to support businesses, and the Government are supporting businesses. Capital gains tax is still the lowest in Europe. In the G7, only the US and Japan are lower than us. Frankly, most employers go into business to create businesses. Sometimes they exit business, and some of our tax reliefs are still better than those of many other countries in Europe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, several of the corporate collapses that the Minister referred to earlier were associated with private equity ownership and high levels of debt. Moody’s reports that default rates have been twice as high for private equity-owned firms as for others. The Financial Times leading article on 6 June noted that, with exit activity from private equity funds slumping to a historically low level, some private equity firms
“are resorting to … risky … methods of generating liquidity”.
Are the Government concerned about private equity’s impact through these means on both the real economy and financial stability?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, private equity plays an important role in business support in this country. We have seen private equity companies that have acquired businesses and actually grown them as well. Yes, their track record is not great, but there is definitely a role for private equity in business in this country. Do not listen to the Government. Listen to people in the private equity business. Jamie Dimon said:
“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s … strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.
Yesterday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued that the UK was in the “Goldilocks” zone with great universities, a good start-up culture and the third-largest amount of investment in AI companies globally outside the US and China.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the 2024-25 financial year, the Insolvency Service disqualified more than 1,000 company directors? Of those, a significant proportion—736—were banned for abusing the Covid-19 Bounce Back Loan Scheme. Additionally, there were 131 individuals subject to bankruptcy restriction orders, with 87 of them also linked to the misuse of Covid-19 loans. How many businesses had to wind up because of those facts?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. Yes, those figures are quite high. It is right that the full force of the law should come down on company directors who are found to be trading insolvently. Basically, there are different forms of liquidation, from creditors’ voluntary liquidation to compulsory liquidation, which I mentioned earlier, which has increased mainly because of HMRC prosecution. HMRC, Companies House and insolvency practices target abuses such as tax evasion and this whole area of phoenixism with tougher enforcement, personal liability for directors and upfront tax demand. That should be the way.
Electric Cycles: Illegal Use on Roads
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage police forces across England and Wales to seize electric cycles being used illegally on roads.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act to allow the police to seize any vehicle, including e-scooters, which are used in an antisocial manner, without having to first give a warning to the offender. The Government are also consulting on proposals to allow police more swiftly to dispose of seized vehicles. These actions, I believe, will send a clear message that anti-social use of any vehicle will not be tolerated.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I commend the new Government for taking some steps, but I do not think they have taken enough. Sergeant Ford, who sits here today, has a small team of 10 in the City of London Police—the smallest force in the country—who are actually doing something about cyclists who are ignoring the law, particularly on e-bikes. He and the courts class e-bikes that do not conform to the regulations as motor vehicles. Those who drive them on our roads without insurance get six points on their licence. When are the Government going to get a grip on this? Every day, we see cycles and e-bikes travelling at 30 or 40 mph on our streets, putting our pedestrians at risk, and it seems that our forces are doing nothing about it. I challenge the Government to do more.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I commend the City of London Police for its actions. The force covers a small geographical area, but it seized 325 e-cycles in 2024, which is a good thing. The noble Lord mentioned legislation; we have tabled several new offences to the Crime and Policing Bill, on causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling. Those four new offences—if passed by this House and the House of Commons—will ensure that there are further measures in place that the police can enforce. There is no point in passing legislation if the police do not enforce it. I know, from my view of London every day, that there are people cycling dangerously and cycling in a way that will potentially cause injury. This legislation and the power to seize bikes will send a clear signal that we will not tolerate this.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the greatest hazards among users of e-bikes comes from delivery drivers who have disengaged the speed limiter? They are fairly easy to recognise. Should the police not be focusing on them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right: delivery drivers are a potential area of hazard. This legislation will apply to them, but it is also incumbent on those companies that employ delivery drivers to take action in the event of individuals being found to have breached the legislation, who have perhaps secured points on their licence and will, in future, perhaps be subject to this legislation.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, given the challenges with identifying illegally modified e-bikes, and given the success of the mobile rolling road test benches used in the Netherlands that enable police quickly and accurately to determine whether e-bikes exceed legal power or speeds, will the Government consider looking at what is being done in the Netherlands and deciding whether that might be appropriate to use here? I think the Government will find that the success in the Netherlands is something that we really ought to replicate here.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I will certainly look at the position in the Netherlands and see what we can take from that. The measures that I mentioned will be before this House in very short order, when there will be an opportunity to examine and further debate them. It is also important to say that the police take very seriously the question of offenders on e-cycles that are modified and looked on as motorcycles. When appropriate, if they wish to, the police may even pursue an illegally modified e-cycle and employ tactical options to bring the vehicle to a stop. This is unacceptable anti-social behaviour, and the Government are taking it seriously and have put new legislation forward. For the very reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, we want to ensure that the police up their performance in tackling this by making arrests and seizing bikes where they cross the threshold of illegality.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the steps that the Government have announced are very welcome, but will they do more to hold to account the corporate interest, which is employing some of the delivery drivers that, quite rightly, have been named as a problem here, and call them in and make it clear that the low-paid workers who are riding a lot of these illegal, uninsurable vehicles are not the only ones who should be held to account here? Those big tech companies should be told that, unless they make it clear that illegal bikes cannot be used to deliver our groceries and takeaways, they too will be held to account.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. There is a corporate responsibility for people who are employed to deliver. If a vehicle, as in a delivery car or van, was undertaking persistent behaviour of an antisocial nature, I am sure the company would take action, and companies should be looking to do the same with cycles and e-bikes. I hope my noble friend will accept that the measures before the House shortly are an initial, very strong signal on criminal action on potential death and injury from cycling and on the seizure of bikes by the police. At the moment, the seizure of bikes can be undertaken by the police, but they have to give a warning. Under the legislation before us now, no warning will be given: a bike will be seized if the police officer wishes to seize it. We will take action and dispose of that bike or crush it within short order.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is currently illegal to use a bicycle or an e-bike on a pavement. It is putting vulnerable people, such as people in wheelchairs and young children in prams, at risk. I welcome the provisions that the Minister is including in the Crime and Policing Bill, and I think it encompasses a lot of the provisions in my Private Member’s Bill. If the police are not enforcing the current law, what possible hope do we have that they will enforce any future law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the work that the noble Baroness has done on this matter. The Private Members’ Bills that she has brought forward have been very instrumental in raising this issue. It is self-evidently an issue: in the course of the day, none of us will drive or walk around and not see somebody committing an offence that should be taken to court and dealt with. The police have many calls on their time, and they have to be there to see the potential offence and catch the individual at that time. I am very hopeful that the 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers that this Government are putting in place will be able to help support that enforcement and that action. I remind the noble Baroness that those are 13,000 officers that were not there over the previous 14 years.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, leading on from the Minister’s answer, this is a serious matter, which needs to be addressed by government. I wager that every noble Lord has seen some sort of illegality related to electric cycles, such as speeding violations or people riding them on pavements, and by cyclists, such as running red lights and failing to stop at zebra crossings. In light of this, can I ask the Minister whether the current legal framework around e-cycles and e-scooters is well understood by the public and, indeed, the police? If not, what steps are being taken to address it? Does he consider that sufficient attention is being given by the police to this issue? If not, what is his department doing to remedy it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is important that cyclists particularly understand and know the legislation that appertains to their responsibility in using a bike or e-bike. Going back to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, 324 offences were undertaken and arrests were made in the City of London; over 1,000 were undertaken in the remainder of the Metropolitan Police area, and there were many more across the country at large. For those offences, individuals need to know that, if you go through a traffic light, ride on a pavement or crash into somebody, there is a consequence for you if you are seen by a police officer and brought to account. The new offences will mean that the dangerous behaviour that the noble Lord has mentioned of potential injury or potential death by going across a zebra crossing or going through a red light will face a significant punishment of custodial terms. People—drivers, pedestrians and, dare I say it, cyclists—need to understand that.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, electric cycles that meet the specific regulations are allowed to be used on public roads. There are numerous parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, where electric scooters are banned on public roads. Despite this, they are often ridden openly and recklessly in these locations. What can the Minister and his ministerial colleagues do to persuade local police forces throughout the kingdom to use the powers given to them to confiscate electric scooters that are used contrary to the law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The law is there for individuals to adhere to, and it is for the police, in the event of people not adhering to it, to collect evidence and put it to the Crown Prosecution Service, which can put it to the courts to issue penalties. We are trying to improve the level of the penalties and improve the ability of police to take action speedily rather than having to give warnings first. There are different arrangements in place in other parts of the United Kingdom, because some of the aspects we are bringing forward are devolved to England only or are matters for England and Wales through the police force. It is a serious issue, which I know every elected Member in the House of Commons and every Member in this House, takes extremely seriously, because we can see the visible impact of those offences on a daily basis. The commitment I am giving to the House is that, if the House passes the legislation, there will be additional measures and powers which will, I hope, impact upon the public awareness, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned, and on criminal justice outcomes.
Public Order Act 1986: Section 5
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the operation of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure that it respects freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and outline my interests as declared in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government have no plans to review Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 but remain committed to ensuring that all public order legislation protects both public safety and, importantly, individual freedoms.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that freedom of religion or belief in the UK was hard won over many centuries. Citizens need to be able to peacefully criticise the tenets of someone’s faith or beliefs and institutions. Regrettably, recently the Crown Prosecution Service purported to charge an offence under the Public Order Act of
“intent to cause against religious institution of Islam, harassment alarm or distress”.
That is entirely wrong in law, as well as poor grammar. It raised emotions on an already delicate situation and had, of course, to be amended. While respecting the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from both Parliament and government, will the Minister outline what review is being undertaken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate legal and religious knowledge and that senior leaders approve charges in cases such as this—I am assuming they did not approve that charge—to ensure that that does not happen again?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are absolutely committed to free speech and to ensuring that we are an open, diverse country where freedom of speech is valued and freedom of religion is maintained. If the noble Baroness is referring to a particular case that I am aware of in relation to the burning of the Koran recently, I take the view that the law should apply no matter what the religion or faith that is potentially impinged upon. The offence there was not because burning the Koran was illegal. The actions of the individual were seen by the Crown Prosecution Service, following police investigation, to be harassment and abusive action. In that case, the police investigated and collected evidence and put it to the CPS. The CPS looked at that evidence and the case was put before a court, where the individual was found guilty. The individual concerned is now appealing. I cannot say any more about that case. However, whatever we do, it is important that the law is applied equally, fairly and across all religions.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, if such a review were to take place, would the Minister and the Government reaffirm that exercising the freedom to stand silently praying in a public place is not an act of hostility and should therefore not be considered a criminal office within the United Kingdom?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The act of standing and making a protest is a fair and open act. It will not be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If the noble Lord is referring, as he may be—and if he is not, I apologise—to the question of abortion clinics and abortion legislation, the Government have passed legislation on this matter. Silent protest is allowed, but not within a limit set by law. That is fair and appropriate for people who wish to protest, as well as for people who wish to access a service that this House and the House of Commons have passed as being legal.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
Given reports that recent protests have been largely peaceful, how will the Government ensure that the new powers to restrict protests near places of worship are not used to criminalise lawful dissent or acts deemed to be merely offensive? What guidance will be provided to police so they avoid subjective or arbitrary enforcement and to ensure that these powers are applied proportionately and transparently, to maintain public trust?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness again raises measures that will come before this House in very short order in the Crime and Policing Bill. We are planning to introduce a new measure that gives protection to synagogues, mosques, churches and other places of worship from—and this is the key point—
“intimidating levels of disruption caused by protest activity”.
That is across the board, whatever the religion, whatever the faith. If somebody is undertaking intimidating levels of disruption, and that protest is an intimidatory, harassing protest, action will be taken. This House will have an opportunity to debate where that line is drawn when the Bill comes before the House. It is certainly a measure that I hope Members of the House recognise as being important; it is important that we protect religious organisations from disruption and harassment while, at the same time, ensuring that everybody has the right to protest.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, as always, for putting equal treatment at the heart of human rights. However, regardless of individual cases that we get hot under the collar about—we pick and choose which ones to get upset about—is it not time to have another look at not just the operation of Section 5 of the 1986 Act but its framing? I suggest that most noble Lords would agree that threatening and harassing conduct should be criminal, but broader, lower-level conduct “likely” to cause “alarm or distress”? Some people are a little bit too easily alarmed and distressed. It is not about just religious freedom; it is about freedom of expression as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. The Government keep all legislation under review at all times. The very fact that this discussion is taking place on this question means that we have looked at the legislation today and looked at the applicability of certain matters. There is a balance to be made. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 has stood the test of 39 years to date, through a range of protests, a range of measures and a range of Governments. It has stood the test of time.
We keep it under review, but the important principle behind it is that Section 5 of the Public Order Act gives a clear definition of harassment and intimidation. Protest crosses the criminal threshold where it goes into harassment and intimidation. That is why the prosecution was taken in the case to which I believe the noble Baroness referred, and why, in other cases, prosecutions have not been taken.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is vital, of course, that, despite social trends, the law remains consistent and is applied in a way that is fair and even. Concerns about political correctness and what is socially acceptable should not determine how a statute such as Section 5 is applied. Recent protests have seen the law applied unevenly in the opinion of some, and clearly threatening antisemitic slogans have been permitted without question. I therefore ask the Minister what discussions he has had with police forces about the thresholds for using Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Can he guarantee that, following these discussions, the police will be under no doubt as to what is and is not permissible under this threshold?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
What I can give the noble Lord is an assurance that the police will treat all members of the community on an equal basis before the law. Where actions have been taken by any protester—be they antisemitic, anti-Islamic, anti-Christian or anti any faith—if they cross the threshold of potential investigation/prosecution/conviction, that will be taken forward on an equal basis by the police. We keep these matters under discussion all the time. There is in my view no such thing as two-tier policing. The police do a job effectively and they will take action when matters are brought to their attention.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, I declare my interest. Together with the National Secular Society, we paid for the defence of the individual referred to and we will jointly be paying for his appeal. At 2 am on Saturday, the individual in question was woken by police officers at his safe house to inform him that the Metropolitan Police were investigating a plot to kill him. Will the Minister join me in urging the police to do their utmost to protect the individual in question? We do not want a repeat of what happened in Sweden last January, when an Iraqi refugee who had repeatedly burned copies of the Koran was murdered.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Let me put it this way. If a potential offence—which threats to kill are—is made, the police have a duty to investigate and, if the offence proves to have validity, to take action, to prepare a case, to go to the CPS and to take potential conviction action where the court will determine whether the allegation the noble Lord has made is correct. The individual concerned is appealing. I cannot comment on the appeal; Members of this House would not expect me to comment on either the conviction to date or the potential appeal. I say to the noble Lord that, if offences are potentially being committed, it is the duty of the police to investigate and take action. I will leave it—if he will let me, in a freedom of speech way—at that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What is the view of the Government about incidents logged by the police which do not in fact create crimes?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are in discussion with the police, the College of Policing and the Chief Constables’ Council on the very issue the noble and learned Baroness raises. That has come out of a number of cases since the general election which have been brought to our attention, where we believe the police should be taking action to investigate crimes. But they should also be proportionate in what they do in relation to the way in which that crime is brought to their attention and make a decision on that. I have been clear at this Dispatch Box on several occasions that the police need to examine the approach to those non-crime hate incidents very clearly. I believe the police will be doing so and issuing guidance in due course.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 27 March and 1 April be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move, I hope en bloc, the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I apologise but I wish to make two very quick points with regard to these measures that we debated last week in Grand Committee. I gave the Government Whips’ Office notice of this.
The first is that these measures relate to the foreign influence registration scheme, which is a significant legislative tool to seek to prevent countries conducting political interference within the UK. There is cross-party support for these and we passed them with the National Security Act. What gives me concern are the exemptions to the scheme that the Government have introduced in one of these measures. We know that many countries seek to influence the UK through education arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds. We debated this during the passage of the National Security Bill, when I raised these specific issues, including the use of sovereign wealth funds.
We also know, through warnings from the director-general of MI5, that they are used on an “epic scale” by China. It is the Government’s choice—at their own discretion—not to put China on the enhanced tier of this scheme. The exemption measure introduced by the Government will mean that education and sovereign wealth funds are exempted almost in their entirety from the scheme. I am not seeking to divide the House, because the Conservative Front Bench has supported these exemptions. It will be for it to explain why, but I believe this is an error.
My second quick point is that the Minister, in his characteristic way, listened to the debate and undertook to write to me and others who raised concerns, in advance of today. He honoured that commitment; we received the letter yesterday. I thank him—no doubt he was working on Sunday—and his officials for the comprehensive letter supplied with the annexe of explanations. I remain unsatisfied with the Government’s explanations. But the Minister acts with great respect to this House, and sincerity, and I thank him for honouring his commitment to reply to me.
In his letter, he said that as it is a new scheme it will be “under review” and there will be an annual report. I say sincerely to the Minister that I believe the Government are making an error with these exemptions. I respect the Minister and the explanations he has given, and I look forward to further opportunities to raise these concerns as the scheme is implemented.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the notice the noble Lord gave to my colleagues in the Government Whips’ Office that he was going to raise these matters.
For the benefit of the House, of the five instruments before the House, four relate to Iran and Russia and one relates to the ban on ninja swords. They were moved en bloc. The ninja sword ban, I hope, has broad agreement across the House. The four instruments the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has mentioned, relate to Iran and Russia. If I may defend myself, I gave an explanation in the Committee. I took the noble Lord’s interventions and gave a further explanation in the Committee. I agreed to write to him and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—I am grateful he acknowledged that I did that over the weekend—to clarify still further the reasons the Government have taken the view they have.
For the benefit of the House, the sovereign wealth fund political tier exemption has been targeted to ensure that it does not provide a loophole for foreign powers to channel their political influence and evade the scheme. The vast majority of work done by sovereign wealth funds would already fall out of the political influence tier. The exemption will apply only where the fund is being directed by its home state to carry out political influencing relating to its investment. It is very tightly drawn.
In relation to the funding study arrangements, the exemption ensures that the scheme does not unnecessarily deter international students from studying in the UK. We want—the Liberal Democrats particularly want—international students to come and study in the United Kingdom. We have discussed this very clearly with student bodies and university institutions. We do not consider it necessary to apply the FIRS to international students whose activities are related purely to their course of study. However, for example—this is the point I made in Committee—if the international student was being directed by the Russians or Iranians to carry out wider duties over and above their studies, they would be liable to register. Someone who comes to study is studying. Someone who comes to study but is actually working for the Iranians or Russians has to register. If it becomes known afterwards that they have not registered, they will be liable for a five-year prison sentence. I understand the points the noble Lord has made, and I hope I have satisfied him.
The noble Lord mentioned two other points that I want to touch on. First, we keep this under review at all times. The scheme operates from 1 July onwards, and there will be an annual report. Ministers are going to ensure that the scheme meets its objectives, because our objective is to stop Russian and Iranian influence. The noble Lord mentioned China. We keep all regimes other than Russia and Iran, which are specified in the regulations, under review; if they cross a threshold that the Government have concerns about then action will be taken. We have brought forward these measures because the Russians and the Iranian state are a severe threat to this nation and to individuals residing in this nation, both UK individuals and nationals from foreign states who are in this country. The first scheme is designed to put measures in place—we would not be putting them in place if we believed there are loopholes through which those two countries could slip.
I hope that I have answered those points today, as I thought I had done over several hours in the Grand Committee on Thursday. I commend these instruments to the House.
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Bill Davis, after the sad news that he passed away at the weekend. He made a significant contribution to criminal justice and I particularly recognise his work serving on the Sentencing Council, first as a judicial member between 2012 and 2015 and then as its chairman since 2022. The Lady Chief Justice recalled him yesterday as one of the very best criminal judges of his generation. I am conscious that many noble and noble and learned Lords will have known and worked closely with him. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to extend our deep condolences to Lady Davis and his children and to all those who knew him.
I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have contributed to debates on the Bill in this House. Despite its short length, it has prompted careful and detailed consideration from Members of this House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have, throughout its passage, provided constructive challenge. I am grateful to the officials who have been involved in its preparation and passage. The Opposition Front Bench, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, have engaged constructively on the Bill, for which I am grateful. I pay particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who have all been generous with their time in both their scrutiny of the Bill and their engagement with me. Finally, I thank the team who have supported me on this Bill, in particular Katherine, James and Jack, to whom I am very grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I add my note of sadness at the news of the death of Lord Justice William Davis recently and add my condolences to those of the Minister to his family upon his passing. He was a judge of great distinction. He led the Sentencing Council, which is the subject of this Bill, with very great distinction as well. He will be greatly missed.
Turning to the Bill, we made it clear that we did not agree with the Bill: we did not agree with the principle or that the proposed guidelines of the Sentencing Council threatened the notion of equality before the law. We believed, as is clear, that this was not a sensible use of emergency legislation and that the disagreement between the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor should have been resolved without the need for legislation. We were concerned that the Bill had the potential to damage the Sentencing Council. In the event, we did not succeed in securing the withdrawal of the Bill, or in amending the Bill, which had Conservative support, so it will now become the law.
However, we can take two strong positives from the debate around this Bill. The first is the Government’s commitment to the Probation Service and to the importance of pre-sentencing reports in giving guidance to judges and providing consistency in sentencing. The commitment has been to having more reports of higher quality, backed up by increased resources. I thank the Minister for his kind words to me and others in opening this short debate; I say from these Benches what a credit he has been to his department and to this House in coming fresh to the House with his very strong commitment to the sentencing system and the Probation Service. His presence on the Front Bench has been a breath of fresh air for us all, and we are very grateful to him.
The second positive has been the recognition around this House of the enormous value of the Sentencing Council in giving independent, well-researched advice on sentencing to judges, with a view to promoting consistency not just in sentencing but in the approach to the factors that judges need to take into account in sentencing. I add my gratitude to Members around the House—both those with experience of acting in criminal cases and those with no experience of the criminal law or of law at all—who have stressed the importance of these issues to the development of the law and our criminal justice system, and, perhaps more importantly, to the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system in future.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the late Lord Justice William Davis. We learned of his death over the weekend with deep sadness. His integrity, clarity of thought and unwavering commitment to fairness made him a towering figure in the field of criminal justice. His loss will be felt across the entire legal and judicial community, although most immediately by his family, to whom we send sincere condolences.
From these Benches, I express our thanks to all those who contributed to this Bill in Committee and on Report. The quality of that debate, if I may respectfully say so, was exemplary, echoing and always meeting the high standards that this House sets when dealing in particular with matters of criminal justice, with the expertise we have on all sides of the Chamber.
These Benches offer our support for the principles underpinning this legislation. The more effective use of pre-sentence reports will encourage informed and consistent judicial discretion and lead to better sentencing outcomes, reducing reoffending, encouraging rehabilitation and serving the interests of public safety. While this Bill is therefore a very good first step, we look forward, together with other noble Lords around the Chamber, to other initiatives in this area. Sentencing remains a complex and sensitive area of the law because it touches individual lives and the life of the community. We believe that this Bill provides a strong foundation and are confident that it will be implemented to good effect. We therefore support the Bill and look forward to it being implemented as part of a justice system that is fairer, more consistent and more effective.
Finally, on a more personal note, the Minister noted that this was the first Bill which he has taken through the House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that we may disagree politically but these Benches recognise that the Minister not only shares a commitment to a fair and modern criminal justice system but has practical experience in this area. Where possible, we will of course work constructively together, as we did on this Bill.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I first associate myself with the words of those who spoke in tribute to Lord Justice William Davis. News of his death on Saturday morning reached his fellow judges, and former judges, like a thunderclap. He really was tremendously admired and liked. He would take on any additional role that either I or, now, the Lady Chief Justice asked him to assume. He did so smilingly and always with good humour. He will be much missed.
I also associate myself with noble Lords who paid tribute to the Minister for the way this legislation has been piloted through Parliament. I say that despite personally not considering it necessary. It followed the firing off of a letter from the Lord Chancellor at the first whiff of political grapeshot, but we are where we are. In particular, I thank the Minister and his team for the personal courtesy that they showed me in discussing a number of issues that arose in the course of the Bill’s passage. It is perhaps a pity that the Government accepted no amendments in the end, from any noble Lord, but I entirely understand the political imperative for that. Like others, I congratulate the Minister, if that is not thought to be impertinent, on the way in which he conducted this Bill and, more generally, on his debut in this House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
The Minister has the right, but not the duty, to reply.
Winter Fuel Payment
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I rise with a sense of relief, although not without regret: relief that the Government have chosen to reverse a policy that has caused distress and fear among our oldest and most vulnerable citizens, and regret that such a policy was every pursued in the first place. This reversal gives us cause to reflect on the true value of the winter fuel payment. For pensioners on modest incomes it has never been a luxury, and it has supported the most vulnerable through the darkest and coldest months of the year.
Although we welcome the Government’s decision to U-turn, we must not lose sight of how we came to this point. In December last year, I stood at this Dispatch Box and warned the Minister about the very consequences we are now discussing. At the time, I made it clear, and I reiterate today, that withdrawing the winter fuel payment from all but a limited group of recipients dealt a serious and unjust blow to millions of older people across the country. We made our position clear from the outset: the Government were wrong to scrap the winter fuel payments for millions of vulnerable pensioners.
These Benches opposed that policy on three key principles. First, it would have left millions of older people worse off during the coldest months of the year. Secondly, it reflected a misplaced set of priorities, favouring above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers over the needs of those in later life. Thirdly, it was introduced without transparency, with no reference to such a significant change during the general election campaign. We urged the Government to listen to the concerns raised across the House and consider alternative approaches to fiscal responsibility that did not come at the expense of those who can least afford it. This House raised those concerns. We reminded the Minister of the Conservative’s record on support for pensioners, with the triple lock, the warm home discount and the winter fuel payment itself.
As Churchill once remarked, a man who does not change his mind cannot change anything. As we rightly warned last year, removing the winter fuel payment was an appalling blow for pensioners. Today, the Government have done the honourable thing: they have listened, reflected and acted. Admitting a mistake is never easy, but correcting one is a mark of leadership. On this occasion, the Government have finally listened to your Lordships’ House. Is this a taste of things to come—that they will listen to the serious concerns we are raising on the most damaging elements of their policy platform? Will they row back on those parts of the Employment Rights Bill which will devastate small and medium-sized businesses? Will they finally act to protect our farmers from the punitive family farm tax? Will they halt their assault on the best schools in our country in the schools Bill?
This reversal is not only welcome but essential. It reaffirms our commitment to the millions of pensioners who depend on this support and upholds the integrity of our social contract with those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their life. Let this moment serve as a precedent that the voices of the vulnerable must be heard, that fairness must not be sacrificed for short-term savings and that the dignity of older citizens is not negotiable. That said, it is deeply regrettable that this reversal was ever necessary. The original decision was ill-conceived and caused needless anxiety and hardship for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Although we welcome the change of heart, we are entitled to ask how it is being paid for. The Government have said that this U-turn will cost around £1.25 billion; if the economic outlook has not materially improved, as the Chancellor’s own figures suggest, then where is this money coming from? Are tax rises now on the table? If so, which taxes and on whom? Will the Minister confirm whether His Majesty’s Treasury intends to raise revenue through stealth taxes or whether further departmental budgets will be cut elsewhere to fund this reversal?
What of the administrative burden? Will pensioners with incomes above £35,000, in particular those with non-taxable income, now be required to complete tax returns? What guidance will be issued to those who may find themselves unexpectedly caught in a new reporting requirement? Further, will the Minister explain what happens to a pensioner who is widowed, inherits a pension and then finds themselves with an income over £35,000?
This House has a duty to speak out when the vulnerable are at risk. Today, we have fulfilled that duty. The Government have listened, but we must remain vigilant. I say to the millions of pensioners left in uncertainty this past winter: you were heard. I say to the Government: let this be a reminder that the strength of a society is measured not by how it treats the powerful but by how it cares for the vulnerable.
Although we welcome this change of heart, we need to understand how the Government have suddenly found the money to pay for it. In the end, the savings achieved by this policy may be as little as £50 million. Will the Minister tell the House whether it has been worth all the pain and aggravation? Will he apologise now to the millions of pensioners who struggled to get by this past winter?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this surely must be the Government of unintended consequences. When this policy was first mooted, I asked the Minister whether there would be any financial gain from it because, with the further uptake in pension credits, the actual money saved is miniscule. It is nothing like what the Government said they would get, so we have gone through all this pain and people have suffered, all for a strange bit of ideology.
Following on from what the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench said, reports in the media suggest that winter fuel payments will be made automatically as a universal benefit this winter. Money will then be reclaimed when higher-income pensioners fill in their tax returns. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that the new system does not mean that the bereaved families of tens of thousands of dead pensioners—not only widows and widowers but dead pensioners—will be pursued by tax officials to recoup the payments? The Government of unintended consequences strike yet again.
Although the Chancellor has finally acknowledged the failure of this policy—thanks to sustained efforts by the Liberal Democrats and others—the scale of the distress created must not be forgotten. Do the Government intend to uprate the £35,000 threshold in line with inflation in future years?
This has been a disastrous policy. It has not raised the money we were told it was intended to raise. There will be further distress down the line while they try to sort out this mess.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their questions and comments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for welcoming this change of policy, and I thank both speakers for the consensus that now exists across the House on the current policy position.
The noble Baroness began by asking how we got here. We got here, of course, because when we came into office, we had to make a number of very urgent decisions to put the public finances back on a firm footing. That involved us taking some very difficult decisions on welfare, tax and spending, including means testing the winter fuel payment. I am very grateful to her for noting that we have now listened to the concerns raised, inside and outside this House, about the level of the means test.
The noble Baroness asked about the savings that will be generated from this policy. As she rightly said, we expect the policy to cost around £1.5 billion a year in total, including £1.25 billion in England and Wales, by the end of this forecast period. She asked about the savings that this would generate. It is estimated to save around £450 million a year, compared to universal winter payments.
The noble Baroness asked when and how this would be paid for. We are setting out these changes now to ensure that more pensioners can receive support this winter—that is the right thing to do. There is now just one fiscal event a year, so, as is normal, these changes will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, which is the Autumn Budget. This will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside a full forecast from the OBR, and we will ensure that the fiscal rules are met at all times.
The noble Baroness also asked about the other policies we are pursuing. It was appropriate that, ahead of tomorrow’s spending review, she reminded us that the party opposite has not supported a single policy that we have put in place to stabilise the public finances or to raise money for public services. When we have tomorrow’s spending review, it will be very interesting to hear from the party opposite that it now supports all the spending we are doing, even though it did not support a single one of the difficult measures we took to raise money for public services. It is very interesting that she opposed the Employment Rights Bill, because we again see that her party does not support a single measure to improve the lives of working people.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, I think it is true.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about the tax system. No additional pensioner will be brought into the tax system because of this change; we can give that assurance to the House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, asked about recouping payments from deceased people. HMRC has established processes in place to recoup payments and finalise the tax affairs of deceased people, so nothing will change because of this policy. This is not a taxable payment. We assure the House that, if this is the only outstanding tax charge remaining from a deceased person, HMRC will not pursue anyone just for this specific amount of money. The noble Lord also asked whether we will uprate the threshold of £35,000. We will set that out in the Budget.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, as someone who has spoken from these Benches against this proposal, I very much welcome the Government’s decision. The way the change has been characterised is a bit misleading. Does the Minister not agree that this represents a rejection of means testing and a return to universal benefits, with, quite rightly, the cost being handled for those on high incomes through a redistributive tax system?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the change—I was going to say in the means test, and that is obviously exactly what his question is about. I am not sure I am expert enough to engage in a debate with him about the definition of a means test. Clearly, we are raising the level at which pensioners are entitled to and benefit from this policy. As he says, it will be paid universally to all pensioners, and those with an income over £35,000 will have the winter fuel payment recovered by HMRC through the tax system.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, this is certainly a shambolic way of conducting a government, but otherwise, I find myself unfortunately rather out of step with the exchanges so far.
The winter fuel payment had nothing to do with the level of fuel bills. It was paid to everybody, rich or poor, as a prize for reaching a certain age, which is why, at the last general election that I fought successfully as a candidate, the Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to abolish it. Unfortunately, we never got round to that.
The Government failed to make their case, which was exploited very successfully by Nigel Farage, so now they are introducing an extraordinarily generous means test. I quite accept that this should be means tested, but we are now going to pay it out to some of the better off households in this country. Does the Minister not accept that if the Government can somewhere find £1.5 billion to spend on the alleviation of poverty, there are very many more sensible ways of spending it that might help relieve the quite excessive levels of poverty that exist in our society at the moment? Meanwhile, I thank him for the £300 that I shall be receiving in a week or two’s time, although apparently, I shall be giving it back eventually.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am sorry that he does not share the consensus in the House on the new policy position. He is absolutely right in his characterisation of the policy. I do not know what he earns, so it is not right for me to comment on that, but if he earns above the £35,000 threshold, it will be recovered through the tax system. He describes it as an extremely generous means test. It is kind of him to say that, but it is in line with average earnings and we have decided that that is the appropriate level it should be paid at.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party group on older persons. Is the Minister aware that Age UK, which really understands this issue and campaigned on it, welcomes unreservedly the Government’s decision—unlike the Conservatives, who say that they welcome the decision but would not find the money to pay for it? [Interruption.] That is exactly what the noble Baroness said. Will the Minister use his undoubted talents and tell them how they can reconcile that difference?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I pay tribute to him and to Age UK for the campaigning work they have done, not least to increase pension credit uptake. There was a record increase this year in the take-up of pension credit. An additional 60,000 people are now claiming pension credit, which is incredibly welcome.
We have listened to the concerns raised by Age UK, among others, about the level of the means test. We have now acted to ensure that, although we are still means testing the payment, we are raising the threshold to extend eligibility, so that this winter, more pensioners will be able to benefit from it. Nine million pensioners will now receive it—more than three-quarters of pensioners in total.
My noble friend is absolutely right about the party opposite: they are more than happy to spend the money, but they are less keen on raising it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, would it not be better to incorporate the allowance into the pension, which is taxable, making it easier and fairer to administer?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That may be one option, but it is not the option we have chosen.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, as one of the few supporters of the original measure—like my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—I feel the Minister’s pain. But when the Treasury has to retreat, it is best to concede more rather than less; in that respect only, I congratulate the Minister on the proposal. Can he provide an assurance that, as and when the Government have the resources to consider further tax and benefit changes, they will prioritise working-age families rather than the elderly, who have benefited from considerable government largesse, not least through the triple lock?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his qualified support for the policy. The Government absolutely know that their number one concern and mission is to increase the living standards of working people and to do so through increasing growth in the economy, and that absolutely will be the focus of our policies going forward.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the position of the Minister, and it was also good to hear praise for his leadership from the Benches opposite. But does he agree that it is unfortunate to hear attempts to pitch pensioners against workers’ interests in fair pay and stronger employment rights, not least because the workers of today will become the pensioners of tomorrow, and we know that low pay, weak security and poor rights lead to poverty in old age?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I agree with everything that she says. I will just add to what she said at the end: low pay and insecurity at work are detrimental to growth, and obviously we need growth in our economy to pay for the benefits that we want to pay to pensioners and others. Once again, the party opposite calls for the growth but they are not willing to support the policies that get us there.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, when the Chancellor was doing her various media interviews setting out the retreat on this policy, she rather unbelievably tried to suggest that it was done not because it was incredibly unpopular but because somehow the economy has got rather better since last year. Given that we have seen inflation up, unemployment up and the OBR slashing its growth forecast, the Minister should get some personal credit for not trying to insist on that nonsense in your Lordships’ House. When the Treasury analyses the cost of both the original policy and its reversal and takes into account the extra people claiming pension credit and the cost of reversing this policy, can he set out, either today or at the fiscal event, whether this whole set of decisions has saved or cost the taxpayer money?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On the facts about growth, we inherited forecasts from the previous Government for 2025 growth where we would have been seventh out of seven in the G7. In quarter 1 of this year we were first out of seven in the G7, so we will not take any lectures from him about the growth performance of the economy. He asked about the costings of the policy. The costings of the previous policy included assumptions about take-up of pension credit, so that pension credit increase figure was already in the costings for the previous policy. The costings of this policy will be certified by the OBR and scored at the Autumn Budget, and we will set out what he asks for.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on the courageous decision to make the necessary changes to the winter fuel payment and bring some joy to many pensioners. The Government should be congratulated on actually listening to what the people are saying. In that respect and under the principle of parity as it relates to the payment of benefits in Northern Ireland, can the Minister outline what discussions have taken place between the Treasury, the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland about ensuring that pensioners—I declare an interest—qualify for this restoration of the winter fuel payment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. As she knows much better than I do, winter fuel payments are transferred in Northern Ireland. The Minister for Pensions spoke to his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Government yesterday. We are of course very conscious of the need for sufficient lead-in time so that the necessary policies can be put in place in good time for this winter. The Northern Ireland Executive will receive a mechanical uplift in their funding as a result of this change in England and Wales.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I welcome the new policy, but does the Minister agree that the public would find it helpful if some thinking was given by the Government about the choice of the figure of £35,000? I have no feelings one way or the other, but I think the general public might find it helpful to find some kind of rationale behind this figure. Why was it not higher or lower? Why that particular figure?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, £35,000 is broadly equivalent to average earnings. It means that 9 million pensioners will now benefit from this. That is roughly three-quarters of pensioners.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, last week the Intergenerational Foundation released a report that found that the public spending gap between children and pensioners has widened by 170%. That means that in 2023-24 pensioners received around £31,000, in comparison to children at £18,000. The winter fuel allowance has meant that there are fewer pensioners in poverty, and that is a good thing, but when we look at child poverty stats, they are almost double those of pensioners in poverty. Will His Majesty’s Government review abolishing the child benefit cap?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and I absolutely share her commitment to tackle child poverty in this country. We have made initial steps with the free school meals policy that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education set out last week. I hope that the spending review will have more to say on that subject, and on the child poverty strategy published alongside the Budget.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I have two points. First, can the Minister say how many more pensioners will now have to submit a tax return? Secondly, this policy is full of anomalies. To give just one example, somebody who has saved diligently since ISAs began will have a portfolio of about £400,000. The income from that is not reported on any tax return at all. Therefore, somebody with £35,000-plus—at least £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 more—can still get winter fuel payment under the Government’s announcement. How are the Government going to force people to disclose the income from ISAs and other tax-free savings?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, the tax system stays exactly as it is now, so I do not quite understand how my noble friend’s question arises. As I said before, no one will be brought into the tax system as a result of this policy who currently is not in the tax system.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I welcome the reversal of the decision on winter fuel payments, having spoken, like others, cautioning against so many pensioners who are vulnerable and in need being deprived of it—not against the principle of changing it and restricting it to some degree. I just wonder whether, in terms of lessons learned, a more general principle might be acknowledged that in future cuts, the Government will not look to making them from vulnerable or disabled people.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said all along, we have listened to the concerns about the level of means tests. We are still means-testing the winter fuel payment, because we think it is right that the very richest pensioners do not have their fuel bills subsidised when there are other calls on public spending, but I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for supporting the policy now to extend that eligibility so that this winter more pensioners are able to benefit from it.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I welcome the undoing of a terrible wrong. Can the Minister confirm that the Government estimate that about 50,000 more pensioners were in poverty last winter and 100,000 more pensioners ended up in A&E? Does this not show the difficulties of making short-term changes, without proper planning, which affect some of the most vulnerable people in our country? I ask for a commitment that, first, there will not be a consideration of means testing of the state pension itself and, secondly, the Inland Revenue’s helplines for simple assessment will be sufficiently staffed so that pensioners worried about whether they are going to have to pay back this money will get answers in a reasonable period of time.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to give the noble Baroness those commitments.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Opposition suggested that the Government have put pensioners behind the NHS and teachers. Does the Minister agree that the Tories do not seem to want to tell teachers or NHS staff that they want them to be poorer?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is obviously right to point out that the party opposite has consistently criticised the public sector pay rises that we have given.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the right reverend Prelate, I hope that the Minister is aware that roughly 750,000 pensioners on pension credit and therefore eligible for the winter fuel allowance applied for it last winter but have not yet had it. Will he look at this problem?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will look at that and discuss it with my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I perhaps take a slightly different view on this. Of course, I welcome people being able to get their winter fuel payments. We are still applying the pension credit, which is absolutely right. I do not know what everybody else in this House who got winter fuel payments did with them, but I donated mine to charity; I certainly did not need that £300, and there are plenty of others like me.
If I have a concern about government policy, it is this. Nobody seems to recognise that pensioners benefited very well from the triple lock. I do not agree with the triple lock. I may be in a minority, but that money could be used, as people have said, for alleviating child poverty—probably one of the biggest challenges that we face. I am not expecting the Minister to do an about-turn on that one; I am just making a comment. When we go for the triple lock, there is an expensive cost. Tomorrow, we will hear the Chancellor make known how she will balance that budget. I welcome that people on pension credit—who we wanted to claim pension credit—will be able to get their winter fuel payments. In that respect, this is good. I have only expressed my one area of concern.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he says. Over 12 million pensioners are now benefiting across the UK from the triple lock. Their state pension is set to increase by up to £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. Almost 60,000 extra households are now receiving the pension credit that they are entitled to, which I think we can all agree is a very good thing. He said that he donated his winter fuel payments to charity; he is welcome to continue to do that if his income is below £35,000. If it is under that and he wants to opt out of receiving it, he is very welcome to do so. We will bring forward proposals before the Summer Recess enabling him to do that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, when your Lordships’ House debated the original changes to the winter fuel payment, it was suggested that we should not means-test the winter fuel payment but tax it instead. The noble Baroness the Minister rejected that option, saying that it failed on two fronts: it did not meet the savings test or the fairness test. If the Government had listened to your Lordships’ House then, millions of pensioners who did not receive their winter fuel payment this winter would have done so. What has changed in terms of the practical ability to implement this policy now compared with when it was first suggested by your Lordships’ House?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but to be clear: we are not taxing it. We are recovering it through the tax system, which is a different policy from the one that she is describing.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Of the 12 million pensioners, how many are millionaires? Is it true that it is 3 million?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not have those numbers to hand, but I will see whether they exist. If they do, I will write to my noble friend.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) Where an access agreement relates to a hospital (within the meaning of section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006), physical entry may be refused where—(a) patient safety, infection control, or clinical operations would be adversely affected,(b) the access purpose can reasonably be achieved by alternative means of communication, or(c) access would unreasonably disrupt urgent or time- sensitive medical activity.(2B) In determining whether access is reasonable in the context of a hospital, the Central Arbitration Committee must give significant weight to the factors set out in subsection (2A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes special provision for hospital workplaces, allowing physical access to be refused where it would impact patient safety, infection control, or clinical operations, or where access purposes can be met by alternative means. It requires the Central Arbitration Committee to give significant weight to these factors when considering access in hospital settings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would introduce necessary and proportionate safeguards to ensure that patient safety, clinical operations and infection control were not compromised by well-intentioned but potentially disruptive physical access to hospital environments by trade union representatives. Hospitals are not ordinary workplaces. They are places where critical decisions are made every minute, where vulnerable patients receive life-saving care and where medical professionals must operate in conditions that are tightly controlled in terms of both hygiene and procedure. Permitting physical access to union representatives who are not part of the clinical team and not governed by the same professional or ethical codes introduces risks that simply cannot be ignored.
These are not theoretical concerns. Infection control protocols exist precisely because hospitals deal daily with immunocompromised patients, open surgical wounds and the spread of dangerous pathogens. Entry by any individual not trained in and accountable to those protocols could result in the transmission of infections, the contamination of sterile areas or the unintended exposure of patients to harm. Moreover, hospital environments are highly sensitive to disruption. In intensive care units, emergency departments, operating theatres and maternity wards, even small delays or distractions can have life-or-death consequences. The presence of non-essential personnel in those spaces risks delaying clinical teams, congesting movement corridors, or interfering with time-critical procedures.
Physical access is not just a logistical matter; it can be a direct threat to a hospital’s ability to function safely and effectively. The amendment does not seek to deny trade unions the ability to communicate with members or fulfil their lawful functions. On the contrary, it would explicitly allow access to be withheld only where the access purpose could reasonably be achieved by alternative means; and in the 21st century, such alternatives, as we heard last week, are abundant. Virtual meetings, secure digital communications, designated liaison officers or scheduled engagement in non-clinical areas would all be viable channels for meaningful trade union engagement.
Hospitals are already under enormous pressure, so it is neither safe nor fair to expect them to open their most sensitive environments when those same objectives can be achieved by safer, more appropriate methods. Hospitals also bear legal and regulatory duties that cannot be suspended. Clinical professionals are legally obliged to safeguard patients and maintain secure environments. To require hospitals to grant physical access to non-clinical actors where such access could conflict with those duties would place hospital management in a difficult, nay impossible, position, risking litigation, regulatory sanction and, above all, the trust of the public.
The amendment further recognises the importance of proportionality. It does not seek to impose an outright prohibition; it would simply require the Central Arbitration Committee, when deciding on access disputes, to give significant weight to those clinical and operational factors. That is the right balance, respecting the legitimate role of trade unions while upholding the sanctity of hospital care. To oppose this amendment would be to ignore the distinct and high-stakes nature of hospital environments. No one disputes the value of union representation, but the right to organise must never override the duty to protect.
Hospitals are not platforms for industrial theatre; they are sanctuaries of healing staffed by professionals who need order, safety and focus to save lives. We have a duty to shield them from any policy that risks disrupting that mission. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and uphold the principle that access, however important, must never come at the expense of patient welfare. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his amendment and I hope, perhaps, that the lack of contributions means that we will make some good progress in Committee today.
Lord Katz (Lab)
On the noise from a sedentary position, I mean in numerical terms, if not in substantive debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, just outlined, Amendment 213AA seeks to makes specific provisions for access into hospital workplaces by specifying circumstances in which access may be reasonably refused. It also requires the CAC to consider and give more weight to these factors when deciding on access.
As we discussed last week, the Secretary of State will be able, through regulations, to set the circumstances that the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access, including potentially complex access arrangements in workplaces such as hospitals and other healthcare settings. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made and we will invite all interested parties to provide their views on these matters when we launch our consultation.
It is a complex policy area that will involve detailed practical considerations. It is not as though, at the moment, we do not have strong and healthy engagement with a number of different trade unions in all manner of healthcare settings, including hospitals. We have trade union access, involvement and activity in complex workplaces, including hospitals. Special consideration is given to the importance of keeping them sterile and safe, particularly for those who have immunocompromised conditions and, indeed, anybody who is a patient in that setting. This can and has been achieved, and it is perfectly reasonable for the CAC, following consultation, to make regulations that set this. As I said, this is not a policy area that is not already well rehearsed and understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right that hospitals are particularly special settings but they are also workplaces. The NHS employs large numbers of people and has a very mature industrial relations framework within it. It is certainly not implausible that, in consultation with all interested parties, the CAC could come to a perfectly reasonable compromise on access.
The Government also feel that it is not appropriate to make specific provisions for just this one kind of workplace—hospitals—prior to consultation. We are talking about hospital workplaces as opposed to, say, general practitioner or dental surgeries or other areas where you have regard to clinical safety and the sorts of considerations that the noble Lord talked about. Given that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer, but a little disappointed. His words largely give away why the Government should accept this amendment. I believe he just used the phrase “reasonable compromise” with regard to the Central Arbitration Committee, whereas the amendment just says
“must give significant weight to the factors set out in subsection (2A)”.
The practical impact of both those phrases is much the same.
So I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject this amendment, which is modest, carefully constructed and aimed at protecting one of our most vital public services. We were not asking for a sweeping exclusion, nor undermining the rights of trade unions or seeking—to use the noble Lord’s phraseology—to restrict involvement. We proposed a targeted safeguard that simply recognises the unique, high-risk nature of hospital environments. I will not press the point now, but we reserve the right to return to this in due course. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) After section 69 (right to terminate membership of trade union), insert— “69A Right to switch off in relation to trade union representativesIn every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause confers a right to switch off on trade union members in relation to contact from trade union representatives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 215 and 332 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. They insert a right for trade union members to switch off—to ignore contact from union representatives outside their own working hours.
Let me be clear at the outset that we on these Benches do not see this as an unimportant, “nice to have” option. It is a necessary safeguard in the context of a Bill which is probably doing more than any legislation in living memory to grant privileges to trade unions and inflate union power and will encourage aggressive recruitment regardless of whether or not workers want it. This amendment goes to the very heart of a deeper question we have to ask ourselves: whom is the trade union there to serve—the worker or itself? If we are honest, the Bill increasingly seems more interested in empowering the institution than protecting the individual. The Bill certainly tilts the playing field, not towards workers as individuals but towards union structures as institutions, and it does so with no meaningful safeguards, no checks and balances, and no regard for the fact that many workers today want something very different from what the traditional trade union model is capable of offering.
The Bill is not neutral nor balanced, and it is not simply updating outdated frameworks or modernising collective bargaining: I believe it is a deliberate attempt to revive old-school trade unionism in a dramatically changed industrial context by granting unions not legitimate rights but privileges, whether or not the workers want them. Through expanded access rights, new entitlements and a raft of concessions, the Government are artificially breathing life into organisations that are, frankly, no longer representative of most working people. Union membership has been declining for decades, not because of external barriers but, I believe, because of internal obsolescence. The nature of work has changed, and expectations have changed, yet trade unions have not. Instead of accepting that reality, this Government have decided to push unions back into the workplace, not by making them more attractive but by giving them more power. We know what happens when institutions are given power without accountability: they use it and, often, abuse it.
This amendment is therefore a response to that risk. It says clearly and unapologetically that, even if the Government want to empower unions, individual workers should still be able to set boundaries, especially in their own time. The pressure that comes from union representatives is not always welcome, and it is certainly not always proportionate, especially now that, under the new powers granted by the Bill, I am sure we will see a rise in out-of-hours messaging, campaign pushes, late-night emails, WhatsApp group bombardments, friendly reminders to attend meetings or urgent invitations to back a ballot. It will be relentless, not because it has to be but because unions will be under pressure themselves to prove their relevance, grow their numbers and mobilise more quickly and visibly than ever.
The burden of that spurious urgency will fall squarely on the ordinary—often reluctant—member, who will have joined the union for protection, not politics, and who just wants to do their job and get on with their life. That member deserves a basic right: the right to draw a line. This amendment gives them that right. It says that, outside your working hours, you cannot be expected to respond to union communications, not because you are hostile to unions or are trying to undermine solidarity but because your time is your own—and because respect for the individual must come before deference to the organisation.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 215 and 332, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Amendment 215 proposes a new clause to grant trade union members a statutory “right to switch off”; that is, to disengage from contact initiated by trade union representatives.
It raises the wider question of work/life balance and members’ autonomy. That is not a bad thing to raise and probe in this amendment. However, the caricature by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of a typical union member is a little fanciful. When I was a shop steward, I certainly would not be ringing up union members at 8 o’clock when England were playing football against somebody. I would have got very short shrift and probably would not have been the shop steward the following week. That is the power of trade unions: they can remove and add shop stewards on a whim.
We just need to be a little bit grown-up about the modern trade unionist. We are living in a different age now. It would be wrong for me to say that communication does not happen, but it is now via text, X and WhatsApp, and that is completely acceptable. Where the line is drawn is around giving people a statutory right to switch off, or not. I think it is down to individual members to decide whether they want to be able to be contacted. It should be for the members themselves to decide that, rather than there having to be some statutory right. It is not for me to pass judgment on the desirability or otherwise of it, but I would be interested to understand the rationale and the evidence underpinning the need for such measures.
Amendment 332 is more technical in nature, providing for the commencement of these provisions a year after the Act receives Royal Assent. This delayed implementation may allow for guidance to be prepared or for institutions to adapt. With that in mind, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to both these things—bearing in mind that, at the end of the day, trade unions exist because of their members; if members do not like a trade union, they can leave a trade union. That point has not been brought up anywhere in this House by anybody. You are free and able to join a trade union. You are also free and able to leave a trade union.
I know that, in 1973 and 1974, people did leave the GMB union over some policies that the union had. It was not an impossible thing to do. They were still treated fairly; they were given full consultation and assistance. It was for us to persuade them to come back into the union, which nine times out of 10 they did. It is not always a one-way street. I would hope that the Conservatives understand that unions are controlled by members.
We have annual congresses. One of the greatest things we used to do as the Lancashire region was to overturn the executive once a year in conferences; to us, that was the object of conference. It did not go down well with John Edmonds and the senior management team. I would stand there berating them for the poor pay of gas workers and objecting to a 2% pay rise, and I would get full support. Then I would have to go and see Mr Edmonds. The words he once said to me were, “You control the union for one week and we control it for the other 51 weeks, so I will let you have this week, David. Now leave”. I have deleted and added words there to avoid using any language that would be unfit for this House.
Again, it is a balancing act. I do hope that the Minister will address it in that manner and not just ignore amendments that come in from the Benches opposite. There is something behind the amendments. They are probing amendments and we are just trying to get the flavour of where the Government sit on membership and the unions, with regard to consultation. We spent a few hours—a lot of hours—the other night talking about union rights and members’ rights. I think this issue just touches on the end of that. I can see why it was not raised in that group, but it is still something that needs explaining a bit more clearly.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his very entertaining contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to Amendments 215 and 332 in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
The proposed new clauses would create a right in primary legislation for trade union members to switch off from contact from trade union representatives. As far as I am aware, there is not any demand to introduce such a requirement on trade unions. I have not heard this from my colleagues, or from trade union members, or from any worker, or indeed from any employer or employer organisation that I have spoken to lately.
It is difficult to see what benefit or purpose such an obligation inserted into membership contracts might serve. Currently, there is no obligation for a trade union member to reply to communications from their trade union, as was ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. There is nothing stopping a member ignoring them or telling them to **** off.
This Government are committed to the well-being and positive work-life balance of all workers. The Employment Rights Bill is proof of this commitment, with relevant measures including making flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible. This will help employees and employers to agree solutions which work for both parties.
I say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I reject his allegation of trade union influence and power interfering with people’s lives. As it stands, every member can ignore the messages and communications —whoever has approached them—outside work. There is no evidence that this is currently happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to reflect on that and to be careful with some of the pretty harsh words he has said. I invite him to withdraw his Amendment 215.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has to face the reality of the situation when looking at today’s world, where trade unions represent only 12% of private sector workers. He tells the Committee that this provision is not necessary now, but we are entering a new era. It is one that I recall vividly, when I first came into the House of Commons, just under 50 years ago, at a time when the trade unions dominated lives to a huge extent. Talking to some of my friends in the trade union movement, I sense that they look forward to the day when the trade unions will re-emerge in the private sector and become again dominant in public life.
I too was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for talking about work-life balance. I am rather sad that the noble Lord in responding did not really get into that. That is what this amendment is all about. In sharing with us his experiences in the GMB, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put it in context. I have, in the past, done a lot of cases for the GMB; it is a wonderful, friendly society that looks after people in a huge way. This amendment is not ideological, it is not radical and it would not weaken unions. It would not restrict collective bargaining or impose new administrative burdens on trade unions. All it and the subsequent amendment seek to do is to offer trade union members the right—the dignity—to say, “Not now. Not after hours. Not in my living room. Not when I am at home, off duty and seeking the same privacy and peace of mind that every working person deserves”. We are looking forward to that day, or are we?
If these new provisions give additional power to unions in the Bill, why do the Government not stop for a moment to ask how this will affect ordinary members? Not union leaders, not officials, not full-time organisers, but the actual members who just want to get on with their lives, in peace. That is what this amendment is about—not disruption, not dilution, but balance. I fully accept that many of these members will not complain about out-of-hours contact from a union, but not because they agree with it but because almost certainly they will be tired and will not want confrontation, as they worry that pushing back could lead to exclusion, being labelled or being isolated within the very structure that they joined for protection.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Section 56: consultation requirement(1) Before section 56 comes into force, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, including—(a) representatives of trade unions, and(b) representatives of employers,on the use of digital communication methods as part of access agreements under section 56.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of that consultation.(3) Section 56 may not come into force until the outcome of the consultation under subsection (2) has been published.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on the role of digital communication in trade union access agreements and to publish the outcome before the relevant provisions come into force.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 215ZA is in my name and seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 56. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives of both employers and trade unions, on the use of digital communication methods as part of trade union access agreements under Clause 56. Furthermore, it would require that the outcome of that consultation be published and that the provisions of Clause 56 may not come into force until that has happened.
Let me say at the outset that this is a moderate, practical and entirely necessary amendment. It does not challenge the principle of union access. It does not frustrate the core intent of the legislation. What it does is inject a degree of transparency, rigour and, crucially, consent into a provision that, as it stands, risks doing significant unintended harm to employers and employees alike.
I refer to the remarks made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, during Committee. I thought they were illuminating and, frankly, somewhat concerning. The noble Lord assured us that the Government intend to consult further on the digital provisions. But here is the critical point: the legislation as currently drafted allows Clause 56 to come into force before that consultation has occurred and before any regulations are laid. In effect, this Committee is being asked to pass a framework of legal obligations that have real-word consequences for access to workplaces and digital systems without knowing the rules that will underpin them. This is legislation in reverse, because it enables powers first and critical definitions and safeguards later.
Let us take the words of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, directly. He said that
“the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation”.
But secondary legislation, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Bill and others that this Government are putting through, is not subject to the same scrutiny as primary legislation. It is not amendable. It can be laid quietly and approved via negative procedures. That is why we must build the consultation obligation directly into the primary legislation. Without it, we risk leaving employers, particularly small and medium-sized employers, exposed to obligations they neither understand nor have had the opportunity to influence.
The noble Lord acknowledged that digital access was not included in the original drafting of the Bill and so was not debated during the Commons Committee stage. It was inserted at a late stage in the legislative process. When pressed on this by my noble friend Lady Coffey last week, the noble Lord could offer no justification for the timing or the rationale behind that late change. Instead, we were told that
“in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984 and 985.]
Again, those were the noble Lord’s words.
That may well be the case, but policy made on assumptions and generalities is not good policy. What exactly will “digital access” mean in practice? Will unions be allowed to email employees directly? Will they be granted access to internal mailing lists? What about secure internal platforms or workplace intranets? Will employers be compelled to share employee contact details or act as intermediaries in the distribution of union materials? What safeguards will exist to protect commercially sensitive information, particularly in small firms that operate on a single device or a shared system?
My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley also raised a very pertinent point last week. He said:
“The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer … without any controls, references or parameters”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984-85.]
That is not mere rhetoric but a credible reading of the Bill in its current form. If that is not the Government’s intent, we need clarity in law, not just reassurance from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, tried to deflect concerns by pointing to data protection legislation, but as many in this Committee know only too well, data protection laws regulate the use of personal data; they do not in themselves govern the parameters of access rights under trade union law. Nor do they address the central concern here: that employees and unions need agreed, defined rules of engagement for digital contact in the context of access rights. Indeed, the Government’s apparent position is that all this can be worked out later. That is simply not acceptable. When legislation interferes with the operation of businesses, the integrity of secure systems and the balance of power between employers and unions, it is not enough to say, “Trust us to sort it out in regulations”.
Let me also address the claim that consultation will happen eventually. Of course we welcome that promise, but good process means consulting before rules take effect, not after. It means asking those affected what is reasonable before forcing them to comply, and that is all this amendment does. It would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including trade unions and employers; that the outcome of that consultation be published in the interests of transparency and trust; and that the relevant part of the legislation, Clause 56, cannot come into force until that is done. That would give everyone fair notice. It would ensure meaningful engagement and prevent the scenario we are currently hurtling towards: a system through which access rights could be imposed by the Central Arbitration Committee, including digital access, without any shared understanding of what that entails.
Access must be delivered in a way that is workable, proportionate and appropriate in each workplace context. In many modern workplaces, digital contact is indeed the most effective route, but in some environments, especially among some SMEs, it also represents a point of vulnerability both for the operations and for data security. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for Amendment 215ZA, which seeks to commit the Government to consult with trade unions and representatives of employers on the detail of Clause 56, which covers trade union right of access. In particular, it would require the Government to consult on the use of digital communication as part of access agreements.
I can confirm that the Government have already committed to consulting with both trade unions and employers’ representatives on the framework and conditions of access, including on the details of that digital access. I can confirm that we will not bring forward secondary legislation on this before we have consulted. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment, and I look forward to the upcoming debates on Schedule 6 and Clause 57, I must ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Verma (Con)
When the consultations are going on, how much consultation is being done with businesses from the black and ethnic minority communities? As I keep repeating in this House, I have been speaking to lots of businesses and I have yet to come across one that feels that it is being consulted.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that all the main business organisations are consulted as a matter of course, and many of our consultations are available more widely. I take on board her question about the black community and I will ensure that, where it has representative organisations, they are included.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. Just to be clear, as I understand it, that means that this aspect of the Bill will not be commenced until consultation has taken place. As my noble friend has just suggested, this begs the question of exactly who will be consulted and how. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on that. I do not expect her to be able to answer that now, but it would be very welcome if she could outline the details of this consultation in a letter in due course. However, I am grateful that she has committed to having the consultation before the commencement of this provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the opposition to Clause 57 standing part of the Bill and to Schedule 6 being agreed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I also support Amendment 215AZA to Schedule 6, which proposes inserting
“other than in the usual course of the employer’s business”
after “units”. This is all part of a much wider debate that we are moving towards on trade union access and recognition. The amendment may appear narrow in scope, but it addresses a serious flaw in the current drafting which could lead to unintended consequences that undermine the objectives of the Bill and the practical realities of the modern workplace.
The purpose of the provision as drafted is to prevent employers undermining trade union recognition by artificially inflating the size of a bargaining unit with new employees after the application day. That objective is entirely sound. Employers should not be able to frustrate or delay the process of recognition by manipulating the workforce in bad faith. While the provision seeks to target such behaviour, however, the current wording does so in a way that ignores the economic and operational realities facing most employers.
In the vast majority of businesses, employees join and leave as a matter of course. Recruitment is not a manipulative tactic—it is a normal, often essential part of running an organisation. Particularly in sectors with high turnover, employers must routinely recruit to maintain service levels, respond to demand or support business growth. But under the schedule as currently worded, any new employee who joins the bargaining unit after the application date may automatically be excluded from consideration, regardless of whether that recruitment was completely ordinary and unconnected to the union process.
This risks creating a perverse incentive for employers to delay or freeze hiring during the recognition process—something that may last nine months or more in practice. Employers would be put in an impossible position: either pause recruitment at significant operational and economic cost, or continue recruiting and face the uncertainty of whether those employees count in the CAC’s consideration. It also risks unjustly penalising new employees, who, through no fault of their own, would be deprived of representation in the collective bargaining process simply because of the timing of their hire.
This kind of rigidity does not reflect how businesses operate or how workforces evolve. The schedule, without amendment, assumes a static picture of the workplace—one frozen at the moment of application. That may make theoretical sense in a static model, but in reality it is artificial and unworkable. In doing so, it creates uncertainty for all parties and opens the door to protracted disputes about who should or should not be included in a bargaining unit.
Furthermore, the Central Arbitration Committee is already well equipped to monitor changes in workforce composition. It regularly requires updates to information throughout the recognition process. Employers and unions alike are accustomed to this and operate within it. The idea that including new, routinely hired employees in a bargaining unit would overwhelm or undermine the CAC process is not supported by the CAC’s own established practice. The amendment, therefore, does not introduce an undue burden; it aligns the legislation with how recognition procedures already work in practice.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his keen interest in and amendments to Clause 57 and Schedule 6. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has set out his opposition to both the clause and schedule.
Clause 57 and Schedule 6 speak to our commitment to strengthening collective bargaining and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified, so that workers have security in the workplace by having a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. As we have heard, to achieve this, the clause and schedule remove the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely there will be a majority for union recognition poses a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate, on application to the CAC, that it is likely to win a recognition ballot. In future, unions will need to show only that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application for recognition to be accepted by the CAC.
We also wish to consider whether the current 10% membership requirement on application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future, within the parameters of 2% to 10%, as we have set out in Schedule 6.
Clause 57 and Schedule 6 also address unfair practices and access arrangements in the process of recognition and derecognition of trade unions. I hope this satisfies noble Lords who oppose this clause and schedule that these measures strengthen collective bargaining rights.
Before I turn to the amendments to Schedule 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, it is worth noting that the Government have also tabled amendments to it. We will debate them shortly, and noble Lords may wish to consider them for the context of today’s debates.
Amendments 215AZA, 216AA and 216BB would carve out recruitment in the usual course of the employer’s business from the freeze on the bargaining unit provided for in the Bill. This is well intentioned. Indeed, we consulted on options for a more targeted approach to preventing mass recruitment into the bargaining unit with the aim to thwart a recognition application. However, after considering responses to the consultation, we concluded that a more targeted approach is not workable, as it would be difficult to establish a sufficient level of proof to determine the purpose for which workers had been recruited. In addition, a new obligation on employers to demonstrate their recruitment intent would be a disproportionate and unfair burden, and it could result in employers having to divulge commercially sensitive information.
Amendment 215AA, at least in some cases, seeks to reinstate the 10% membership test on application. It also—again, at least in some cases—would remove the references in Schedule 6 that exclude workers recruited following receipt by the CAC of a trade union recognition application from counting for the purposes of the recognition process.
I will set out my reasoning in relation to the 10% membership threshold on application and why we are including a power in the Bill to allow Ministers to vary the membership threshold from 10% to 2% in the next debate. New Schedule A1 should be consistent on this principle. I refer noble Lords to what I have said previously on this issue. I will also set out why we believe employers should no longer be able to recruit workers into the bargaining unit for the purpose of thwarting a trade union recognition application. I am steadfast that this reform is necessary to ensure that the process is fair and must not be undermined by what could be underhand tactics.
I turn to Amendments 215DA to 215DC, 215EA, 215FA to 215FF, 215FI, 215GA, 215HA and 216BA. Did I get that wrong?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
These amendments seek to delay when unions would be able to request access during the recognition process until after the bargaining unit had been agreed or determined. While I understand what the noble Lord is attempting to achieve with these amendments, employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. The Government’s view is that unions should have access to the workplace as well from the point where the CAC accepts the application for recognition. This enables the unions to also have access to the workplace for a time closer to the start of the recognition process.
Amendments 215FG, 215FH, 216GA and 216MA seek to remove specific unfair practices from Schedule 6. They seem to seek to allow employers or unions to make an outcome-specific offer or use undue influence with a view to influencing the recognition application. These unfair practices are of long standing and are already set out in the legislation currently in force. The use of undue influence could, for example, include the threat or the use of violence. We therefore see no argument for removing these prohibitions on these unfair practices.
Amendment 216 seeks to reverse changes in the Bill by reinstating the requirement that unions meet the 40% support threshold in addition to a majority in a statutory union recognition ballot. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment set out clearly in our plan to make work pay. We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions.
To achieve this, we are removing the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win. We believe that the 40% support threshold represents too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented.
Amendment 216KA seeks to ensure that an employer is not prohibited from taking action against the worker for meeting or indicating that they would like to meet unions during the statutory recognition process if the worker has breached any term of their contract of employment. The prohibition that this amendment seeks to amend is carried forward from the existing legislation, where the proposed proviso about the worker not having breached their contract does not appear. While well intentioned, this amendment is not necessary. The prohibition applies only where the employer takes action against the worker solely or mainly on the grounds that they met with the union. It does not apply where the sole or main purpose is another reason, which may, in some circumstances, be a breach of their contract of employment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.
I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for the debate and for tabling these amendments, but I must ask the noble Lord not to move the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for revealing to the Committee that we are discussing a fundamental reshaping of workplace democracy, with potentially profound consequences. She is right to explain that that is what the Government are about. The Employment Rights Bill does not just tinker with existing procedures; it carefully dismantles the framework established by previous Labour Governments. Under these reforms, as the Minister just revealed, unions would need to demonstrate just 10% membership support to trigger recognition processes, and that is a threshold that regulations could reduce, after consultation, to an extraordinary 2%.
Let me explain to the Committee what that means in practice. In a bargaining unit of 250 employees, recognition could be initiated by as few as 25 members under the 10% threshold, or potentially just five members if it is reduced to 2%. More troubling still, with the removal of the 40% support requirement, union recognition, granting negotiating rights over all 250 employees, could theoretically be achieved with a single yes vote, provided no one votes against. This is not hyperbole but mathematical reality under the proposed framework.
Perhaps most concerning of all is that, as the Minister, Justin Madders, acknowledged in the other place, there has been no consultation on these fundamental changes. We are being asked to revolutionise industrial relations based on ideology rather than evidence, without hearing from employers, workers or even the Central Arbitration Committee, which must implement these provisions. This lack of consultation betrays a troubling disregard for the complexity of workplace relations and the legitimate interests of all parties: employers, workers who support unionisation, and those who do not.
The amendments I spoke to are not anti-union but pro-democracy. They recognise that legitimate collective bargaining must rest on genuine demonstrable support from the workforce it claims to represent. The current proposals risk creating what I can only describe as recognition by stealth, where small, motivated groups can impose collective bargaining arrangements on entire workforces without meaningful mandate. That is not industrial democracy; it is the antithesis of it.
Consider the worker who joins a company the day after a union application is filed. Under these proposals, they may be excluded from the very process that will determine their workplace representation. Consider the 245 employees in my hypothetical bargaining unit who never joined the union and never voted, yet find themselves bound by collective agreements negotiated on their behalf by representatives they did not choose.
Beyond democratic concerns lie practical ones: the amendments I have tried to persuade the House to accept recognise that businesses must continue to operate during recognition processes that could stretch over nine months. Routine recruitment, staff transfers and ordinary business activities cannot be frozen pending union ballots without severe economic consequences. Yet the Bill as drafted forces exactly this choice: suspend normal operations or face the uncertainty of having legitimate business decisions treated as manipulation.
These reforms occur within a pattern of changes that consistently favour union interests over balanced workplace relations. The lowering of thresholds, the removal of safeguards and the expansion of access rights: each individual change may seem modest, but collectively they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of industrial relations. This is particularly concerning given the Government’s stated commitment to economic growth. How can we simultaneously demand that businesses expand, hire and invest while making their operations subject to collective bargaining arrangements that will lack genuine workforce support? The Government must bear in mind that these Benches will not sit back and allow this to happen. We will return to it at Report, but in the meantime, I will not oppose the clause standing part.
“3A After paragraph 13 insert—13A “(1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the CAC has received an application under paragraph 11 or 12, and(b) it has given notice to the employer under paragraph 13 of receipt of the application.(2) The employer must comply with the following duties (so far as it is reasonable to expect the employer to do so).(3) The duties are—(a) to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of the relevant workers; (b) if the relevant workers change as a result of an appropriate bargaining unit being agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of those who are now the relevant workers;(c) to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) does not include any information relating to an individual who is not a relevant worker;(d) to inform the CAC, as soon as reasonably practicable, of any worker in relation to whom information has been given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) and who ceases to be a relevant worker (otherwise than by reason of a change mentioned in paragraph (b)).(4) The relevant period is—(a) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(a)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which notice was given to the employer of receipt of the application, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension;(b) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(b)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which the bargaining unit is agreed or the CAC’s decision is notified to the employer, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.(5) The specified information, in relation to a relevant worker, is—(a) the worker’s name;(b) the worker’s date of birth;(c) the category of worker to which the relevant worker belongs.(6) In the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the relevant workers are—(a) in relation to any time before an appropriate bargaining unit is agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, those falling within the proposed bargaining unit, and(b) in relation to any time after an appropriate bargaining unit is so agreed or decided, those falling within the bargaining unit agreed or decided upon,but excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.(7) In the case of an application under paragraph 12(4), the relevant workers are those falling within the bargaining unit agreed by the parties, excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.13B (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to fulfil a duty mentioned in paragraph 13A(3), and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress.(2) The CAC may order the employer—(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order;and in this paragraph a “remedial order” means an order under this sub-paragraph.(3) If— (a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order, and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,the CAC must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the employer and the union (or unions) that it is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply.(4) A remedial order and a notice under sub-paragraph (3) must draw the recipient’s attention to the effect of sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order,(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,(c) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and(d) in the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the CAC, if required to do so, has decided under paragraph 20 that the application is not invalid.(6) The CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, an application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—(a) the withdrawal of the application;(b) the CAC giving notice of a decision under paragraph 14(7) which precludes it from accepting the application;(c) the CAC giving notice under paragraph 15(4)(a) in relation to the application;(d) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;(e) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 13B(6), 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;(f) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an employer to provide certain information about the workers in a bargaining unit within 5 working days after the employer is notified of an application for recognition of a trade union. The duty does not include workers who joined the unit after the application was received by the CAC, as they cannot vote in any potential ballot arising from the application.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I explained at the all-Peers briefing on 8 May, my amendments to Schedule 6 have been made following welcome scrutiny of the Bill. They do not bring forward new policy but instead aim to ensure that the legislation operates more effectively to implement policies already reflected in the Bill. I will speak to all the amendments in this group, which amend Schedule 6 or the government amendments that I tabled.
On government Amendments 216L, 216M, 216U, 216W, 216J, 216N, 216P, 216Q and 216V, there is currently no provision for a sanction on an employer where the employer fails to comply with access arrangements in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Where legislation imposes a duty, there must be a corresponding enforcement mechanism to give effect to that duty. This is why these amendments have been tabled and why they are necessary.
Amendments 216LA, 216LB, 216MZA, 216MZB and 216MZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, all relate to sanctions on the employer or the union where one of the parties fails to comply with access arrangements generally in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Amendment 216LA, again tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe, would introduce a proportionality test, where the CAC considers applying a sanction on the employer to prevent it campaigning should it be in breach of an access agreement. This amendment is unnecessary. It would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order, as determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process would be difficult to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred.
Amendment 216LB would add an additional sanction where a union has breached an access agreement by allowing the CAC to impose a sanction to prevent the union campaigning. This amendment is unnecessary because, in relation to applications by workers seeking derecognition of the union, the CAC has the ultimate sanction of declaring that the union is derecognised, should the union fail to comply with the CAC order.
Amendment 216MZA seeks to clarify that either the union or the worker can enforce a CAC order but not both, the aim being to avoid overlapping enforcement actions. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but it is not necessary. The legislation is framed so that the union, the workers or both can enforce a CAC order because we cannot assume, where there is an application by workers for derecognition of a union, that workers and the union would be of the same view. To insist that only one party or the other can enforce the order would deprive the other party of its rights. This shows that the Bill is about striking the right balance between unions, employers and workers. Should both the union and the workers be of the same view, the court could simply join their applications together when considering whether an employer had breached the CAC order. In that event, there would therefore not be overlapping enforcement actions against the employer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(5A) Where the CAC is satisfied that changes to the workforce materially affect the composition of the bargaining unit, it may direct the employer to provide updated specified information before the close of any ballot.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the CAC to request updated workforce information from the employer where there have been material changes, ensuring that the ballot reflects the current composition of the bargaining unit.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the amendments, particularly the government amendments. However, she argued that this should have been something of the nature of a general debate. The reason why the amendments were degrouped in the other cases is because they all relate to the government amendments, which the Government are trying to pass off as technical when they are anything but. This deserved a discrete debate and that is what it is going to get. I will have to speak at some length, because there is a great deal to cover, for which I apologise in advance.
I will start with Amendment 215AZZA, which is essential to ensure that the union recognition ballot remains fair and truly representative of the bargaining unit at the time of the ballot. The Government’s current position, which locks in workforce data as of the application date and refuses to permit updates, rests on a false premise, and that is that the workplace is static and unchanging; this is simply not the case.
Many industries, from hospitality and retail to logistics and manufacturing, experience significant changes in their workplace composition over time. Employees leave, new workers are hired and entire teams can be restructured in response to market demand or seasonal shifts. By refusing to allow the CAC to request updated workforce information, the Government’s approach risks ballots that are fundamentally out of date—an electoral exercise held not on the actual workforce but on a ghost workforce that no longer exists.
Our amendment would give the CAC the power to direct employers to provide updated workforce information where material changes occur, allowing the ballot to reflect the current reality. This is not a matter of administrative tidiness. It protects workers from having union recognition based on outdated data imposed on them or from being excluded from the democratic process entirely because they joined the company after the arbitrary cut-off.
Furthermore, the CAC has a proven track record of acting promptly and impartially to ensure that ballots are fair and accurate, so the amendment would strengthen rather than weaken its role in protecting workers’ democratic rights. Without this power, the Government’s framework risks disfranchising many workers and undermining the confidence in the entire union recognition process. I have to say that noble Lords opposite frequently cite democratic concerns about current employment law, and if they are serious and not just paying mere lip service to that notion, they should back the amendment and the others to which I am speaking.
Amendment 215AZZB seeks to correct a fundamental injustice that is embedded in the Government’s Amendment 215A. The Government are excluding any worker who joins the bargaining unit after the application day from participating in the recognition ballot. This exclusion is indefensible. It denies newly hired employees any say in a process that will directly impact their working conditions, their representation and potentially their relationship with their employer. The principle at stake is simple: democratic fairness requires that those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in making that decision. To exclude workers based solely on an arbitrary application date denies them this right. It is not, as the Minister asserted just now, fair; it risks imposing union recognition —or, conversely, denying it—on employees who are not allowed to express their views.
In sectors where employee turnover is high or where the workforce expands rapidly due to seasonal demand, the Government’s approach risks disfranchising a significant portion of the workforce. These workers are often the most vulnerable and most in need of representation. Our amendment would ensure that all workers employed within the bargaining unit up to the close of the ballot would be eligible to vote. This aligns with the recognition process, with democratic principles and with the reality of modern employment patterns. To deny these workers a voice is to undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
Amendment 215AZZC seeks to reinforce the need for fairness by ensuring that newly hired workers are not automatically excluded from the recognition ballot, provided they are employed before the ballot concludes. Again, we believe it is untenable for the Government to argue that workers hired after the application date should have no say in a process that determines their representative status and the terms and conditions that govern their work. In industries that are characterised by rapid hiring, seasonal peaks or unpredictable labour needs, the workforce on the application date may bear little resemblance to the workforce at the time of the ballot. By allowing all workers employed up to the ballot’s close to vote, we uphold principles of inclusivity and fairness, ensuring that this ballot truly reflects the views of those it affects.
Amendment 215AZZCA recognises the realities of sectors characterised by high seasonal or cyclical employment volatility, such as retail, hospitality and logistics. These industries often see dramatic fluctuations in employee numbers, with staff numbers sometimes doubling or halving within a matter of weeks or months. The Government’s proposals fail to take this volatility into account. They impose rigid cut-offs that disfranchise workers who join after the application day, even when their numbers materially affect the bargaining unit’s composition. This is not a marginal issue. In such sectors, the workforce on the application day may represent only a fraction of the employees who will work there over the coming months.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s introduction to my amendments. I accept that the Government want to go for 2% as the lower limit, but I found the Government’s explanation of my other two amendments, which require a minimum of three people, very strange. The Minister said, “It’s not the way it’s been done before, so we shouldn’t change it now”. If she were to apply that principle to the Bill, we could strike the whole thing out and be done with it.
The reason for proposing the change is that it is sensible. It is just not sensible to put a company, particularly a small company, in a position where one employee can trigger this process. A minimum of three is not a big figure; it is just saying that there needs to be more than one, and three seems to be the right place to start. I know it is not the way that it has been done; that is why I put in an amendment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendments 215AZZB to 215AZZD, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. These are to Schedule 6 and I am responding to the Government’s amendments to this schedule, which qualify who may take part in a ballot, to ensure that those workers in the union before the close of the ballot may vote. These amendments address those who join after the application date but before the close of the ballot and newly hired workers within the bargaining unit. Amendment 215AZZD aims to ensure that the CAC is satisfied that the exclusion of new employees would not materially affect the outcome of a ballot or undermine democratic fairness. Amendment 215AZA would ensure that new workers who join the bargaining unit after the application date are not automatically disregarded for the purposes of recognition.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. These proposals, while numerous and largely technical in nature, form an important part of the broader framework for trade union recognition and access. Although they are technical in nature, if you read the amendments—and there are quite a number of them—you will see that the Government are beginning to put a bit of meat on quite a small bone. This is the first time in the Bill that we have seen that kind of thing begin to be teased out. Notably, government Amendments 215A and 215F set out clear procedural timelines and information-sharing requirements between employers and the Central Arbitration Committee to help improve transparency and predictability for all parties involved. By establishing firmer timelines, such as a five-day window to provide workforce data and the 20-day period to agree access arrangements, these provisions aim to support a more orderly and informed recognition process, which I welcome.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I acknowledge the intention to reflect the workforce changes more accurately, but in our view, some of his proposals risk creating a little uncertainty. Amendments 215AZZB and 215AZZC, for instance, introduce provisions to include new and hired workers in the ballot, potentially undermining the principle that eligibility should be based on the state of the bargaining unit at the time of the application. It is like buying a lottery ticket after the lottery has finished, and then complaining if your numbers come up and you are not allowed to win—you literally have to be in it before it starts.
Similarly, the carve-outs from the three-year stability periods found in Amendments 216FA and 216FB could weaken the clarity and consistency that employers and trade unions require. We must be cautious about layering too many exceptions that could reopen settling matters and prolong disputes unnecessarily.
Finally, while the Government’s overall aim of modernising these areas of law is welcome, it remains vital that clarity and simplicity are not lost in that process. We need to ensure that the frameworks, particularly around recognition, access and enforcement, remain workable and intelligible for employers and workers alike. This is important in sectors characterised by high turnover and volatility. I therefore urge Ministers to consider refining these proposals with that principle in mind: that the system must support effective and fair collective bargaining without inviting further ambiguity.
These amendments are well laid and extremely well made. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their clarity tonight in dealing with the issues. To everybody who has been sitting here for seven or eight long nights, I must say that business is not moving any more slowly, but clarity is much improved. I thank the Front Bench and the Conservative group for being more concise in speaking to the issues; I have appreciated that, and I know my group have too. I think the Minister might agree—through slightly gritted teeth—that this is the way forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that we have had a slightly disjointed debate; as I said, some of these issues were debated in the previous group and were covered in my opening remarks. I will pick up a few points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for saying that we are attempting to create a more orderly recognition process, because that is exactly what our amendments are trying to do: to provide the clarity that we felt was missing. I should say that, in addition to the comments I made earlier, we notified all Peers of the Government’s amendments, twice and in writing, and we invited all Peers to a briefing on these on 8 May. All the details have been spelled out in an all-peers letter and supporting annexes. We have therefore been at pains to explain the thinking behind our amendments.
Obviously, most recognition processes go through extremely smoothly, but we believe that this reform is necessary to prevent recruitment for the purposes of thwarting trade union recognition. The process must be fair and not undermined by underhand tactics. Although not all recruitment is underhand, of course, we decided after consultation that the freezing proposed in the Bill is the best way to achieve that fairness. We are attempting to come up with a fair system. Attempting to distinguish between the various intentions of different employers and their recruitment practices is impractical and would be likely to lead to disputes. We felt that this would not be in the interests of employers, the unions or the workers. Of course, there will be changes to the people in the bargaining unit, and where a union is recognised, new workers will be able to take part in subsequent ballots—for example, should a derecognition ballot be held—and other forms of consultation. These restrictions will apply only to that particular element of trade union recognition.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that he wants to introduce a proportionality test. That would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process; that would be difficult for it to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred, rather than having to make the more difficult judgment about proportionality. Also, the CAC is very experienced in such things and is well equipped to do so.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we do not object to his amendment only because this has not been done before, but because we wanted to consult before we made a final decision about changing the acceptance threshold from the 10% proposed limit.
I think I have covered most of the other points, either in the letters that we have sent out or in my earlier speeches. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the substance of my amendment; 10% or 2% is all very fine, but if it results in the answer of one employee being sufficient, that seems to be not an ideal situation. I would have thought that in seeking to look after small businesses it would be sensible to require a minimum number. I cannot see anything in the structure of the Bill at the moment that allows a minimum number to be applied to this percentage. A percentage can generate one if the company is small, whether it is 10% or 2%. Would it not be a good idea to have something in the Bill, subject to consultation, which allowed in small companies with a small workforce for it not to be just one employee who is triggering this procedure?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That that would come out in the consultation. I think the noble Lord’s proposal of three is a somewhat arbitrary number. If we are going to do that, there are all sorts of minimum numbers that could be applied. I urge noble Lords to recognise that these are the issues that we will consider in the consultation, but I do not think that the rather arbitrary figure that the noble Lord proposed is appropriate at this time.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I understand that, but it still requires something in the Bill to allow a minimum number. We can return to that matter on Report.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 15(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 1 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (recognition of trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union seeking recognition is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the union’s application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“21A In paragraph 39 (admissibility of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (5), after “40” insert “, 40A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“27A In paragraph 47 (validity of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (3), after “48” insert “, 48A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 29 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“Changes relevant to appropriateness of bargaining unit
32A (1) Paragraph 67 (admissibility of applications: employer or union believes bargaining unit no longer appropriate) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC must disregard the matter specified in sub-paragraph (2)(c).”32B (1) Paragraph 70 (determination of bargaining unit by CAC) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3A)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC may not take into account the matter specified in sub-paragraph (3)(c).”32C In paragraph 75 (questions for CAC to decide where employer believes bargaining unit has ceased to exist), in sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see paragraph 77(4A)).”32D In paragraph 77 (CAC’s decision as to appropriateness of bargaining unit, etc), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In a case where the copy of the notice given to the CAC by the employer under paragraph 74(1) was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, in deciding whether the original unit is no longer appropriate the CAC must disregard the matter specified in paragraph 75(3)(c).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where the Central Arbitration Committee has issued a declaration that a trade union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, and a decision of the CAC as to the continued appropriateness of the bargaining unit is sought under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the declaration, the CAC is not to take into account substantial changes in the number of workers employed in the original unit.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 68(5) or 76(5) that the application is accepted, or (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (changes affecting bargaining unit) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
“(iii) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(4)) of any ballot arising from the application, the CAC acting under paragraph 29 (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)) in relation to the ballot.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may make an order under paragraph 81I(3) of that Schedule, or give notice of a ballot under paragraph 81I(5), whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may issue a declaration under paragraph 81J(4) or (5) of that Schedule whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (derecognition) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
(a) refuse the employer’s application under paragraph 106 or 107;(b) order the employer to refrain from any campaigning in relation to an application under paragraph 112.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a sanction where an employer fails to comply with an access agreement under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the application for derecognition of a trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit has been made by one or more workers in the unit under paragraph 112 of that Schedule. The Central Arbitration Committee may order the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.
116EA “(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 116E(4)(b) in relation to an application under paragraph 112.(2) The worker making the application (or each of the workers making the application) and the union (or each of the unions) are entitled to enforce obedience to the order.(3) The order may be enforced—(a) in England and Wales, in the same way as an order of the county court;(b) in Scotland, in the same way as an order of the sheriff.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32. It enables the worker making the application in question, or the trade union concerned, to enforce an order made against an employer requiring the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 247, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of Schedule 6 at page 249, lines 32 and 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 247, line 2.
Baroness Coffey
and insert “, in subsection (1)—
(a) omit “of those voting on a ballot”;(b) after “union”, insert “by a ballot”.” Member’s explanatory statement
The intention of this amendment is to remove the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Clause, and ensure that the majority of all union members who could possibly vote are needed to pass a political resolution, not just the majority of those that vote.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 216YC, I will also speak to Amendment 216YD and address Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to which I have added my name—as indeed has my noble friend Lady Finn, whose birthday it is today; she knows how to have a good time. I will also address Amendment 218A and various other amendments, and Clause 77.
In essence, we are debating Clauses 58, 59 and 77. Clause 58 is about political funds. The situation has been that a political resolution is needed, and a fair, open, democratic process occurs every 10 years at most where members of the union are invited to keep the resolution going, or a new resolution may be put forward. One thing that concerns me is that this clause could simply wipe out that need.
I do not know in detail how every political resolution can be put forward, but my understanding of trade unions is that, by and large, individuals cannot put them forward. They can be put forward only through resolutions and motions, often by a person who is a delegate of a branch or similar. As a consequence, in effect, we have a situation where a political resolution can go on ad infinitum. I am not sure that that is the right approach.
I recognise that a lot of the rest of the Bill is about changing ways that people can vote to try to make it a lot more digital and a lot easier. I understand why the Labour Government, in partnership with the trade unions, believe that that is the right approach. I am also conscious, though, of why changes have been made in the past.
I am looking just to probe with my proposal. At the moment, there is a threshold for a strike where at least half of those eligible to vote have to vote. Here, there is none of that at all. It shows me somewhat that, even with trade unions, there is a lot of disengagement from this part of the process. I get that a lot of people are not necessarily opting out. To give an example, with the Musicians’ Union resolution, only 18% of members actually voted or participated in the ballot. With UNISON’s last resolution, fewer than 15% of its members were involved in determining whether to keep the resolution. As I said, this does not seem very open to anybody who might want to table a different resolution. I am not expecting UNISON to start contributing funds to the Conservative Party any time soon—I guess the name of its political fund, Labour Link, gives the game away on where UNISON would like its funds to go—and that is democracy, but I am thinking of ways that we could potentially extend this.
On Amendment 216YD, we seem to have had a lot of general elections recently, but I hope we are now in a situation where we hold elections every five years. If your Lordships were so inclined, it would make sense, recognising the direct link between political funds and political parties, to start to think about these political resolutions happening every five years instead of every 10 years. We are in a political world that is significantly changing. Almost every parliamentary constituency has at least five candidates, with at least six or seven outside of England, in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is worth considering whether we should update this.
I generally agree with the proposal that we should get rid of Clause 59 in its entirety. I think back in particular to Second Reading. I will not go into detail, but the noble Lord, Lord Burns, spoke eloquently about what happened with his review. I do not plan to dwell on his amendment, as there are others who will contribute to it more. For me, it goes back to the need for a sensible approach instead of having to go through a long procedure, which to some extent is probably contrary to Article 11 and the implicit right not to join either a trade union or a political fund. This clause scraps that. Ministers have commented that that is okay. The basis is that you can opt out, and it will take effect the following January. You might have contributed a lot of money by then, but they think that is all right.
This is why I tabled my Amendment 218A; I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Cash supports it. If we go ahead with the opt-out approach then someone who opts out may not have all the necessary paperwork on the day they decide to opt out—apart from when they join the union in the first place. Therefore, if we gave them four weeks from their becoming a member of a trade union, during which they could decide that they did not want to contribute, their decision could be backdated to the day of joining. This is an approach for a modern world, where people may not want to spend all their time looking at the small print when they sign up to something to understand quite what they can or cannot do, which can affect their rights. Contrary to the Bill’s title—the Employment Rights Bill—the text as it stands in effect removes an employee’s rights. If the Government were to scrap that element about “the day” I would be more than delighted, although I would prefer to stick to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
As regards some of the other approaches put forward in various amendments in this group, I would not in any way want to accuse any trade union of trying to allow intimidation or the like in their dealing with their members. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, eloquently cite, I am sure with good evidence and good experience, cases of employers intimidating. However, I think it is fair to say that some of the trade union reforms that happened over the past decades—very few of which were changed by the Blair and Brown Governments, I should point out—were made on the basis of concerns about intimidation. I hope the Minister will at least recognise some of the concerns that noble Lords may have in this group. A variety of amendments have been tabled, which all seek to get us to us to a similar place.
Finally, I will speak to Clause 77, which starts, in effect, to remove transparency. Transparency is a good thing when we talk about democracy and the contributions that organisations make to a variety of political parties. I am surprised that the Government are going down this route. I cannot believe that it is that arduous for trade unions to compile this information. There are other aspects of what is happening with the certification officer, which we will get on to in another group, but given the importance that has rightly been given to considering the issues concerning the Electoral Commission, it is right that we should also consider this issue carefully at this stage. I do not believe that removing transparency is the right direction for the Committee to take.
Although I intend to keep this debate lively and pacy, it is important that we make sure that we get to the bottom of why this provision has been felt to be necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain, fundamentally, why the Government have taken a complete and utter about-turn if it has not been designed —I do not want to upset the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport—to increase the amount of political funds. I am sure those funds will be use in very good ways—well, considering my political party, perhaps not always in good ways—but when the transparency is removed we will not be able to have that scrutiny. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I advise noble Lords that if Amendment 216YC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 216YD because of pre-emption.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 217 relates to Clause 59 and the requirement to contribute to a political fund, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn, Lady Coffey and Lady Cash. As we know, by law, a trade union wishing to spend money on party-political activities must set up a separate political fund for financing any such expenditure.
The amendment addresses a single issue: whether new trade union members should be explicitly asked whether they wish to opt in to contributing to the union’s political fund or should automatically become contributors to the political fund unless they take action to opt out. The present position is that new trade union members become contributors to the political fund only if they give notice of their willingness to do so by submitting an opt-in notice. Additionally, every year unions must notify members of their right to submit a withdrawal notice.
Clause 59 proposes to change both conditions so that new members will automatically become contributors to the union’s political fund unless they give notice of their wish to opt out, and will be notified of their right to submit a withdrawal notice only every 10 years, rather than every year as at present.
This is a controversial issue today and one that has been debated for more than 100 years. The position on opt-in or opt-out has changed several times since trade union political funds were legalised in 1913. I am very sorry for my cough.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Will the noble Lord give way? He might find an opportunity to take advantage of the water that was provided. I just wanted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is making a very powerful contribution to this debate and I am going to support him in his argument. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord Burns (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for those kind words. Unfortunately, it is the season of the year when I take various inhalers for hay fever and such like and the dust tends to gather in my throat when I am sitting for long periods, as I have been this afternoon.
I was just mentioning that this is a debate which has gone on for a long time. Between 1946 and 2016, members automatically became contributors to political funds unless they opted out. In 1984 the Conservative Government considered legislating to change to the opt-in model but settled for an agreement that the unions would increase awareness among members of their right to opt out.
In 2015 the Conservative Government introduced a Trade Union Bill that proposed to change the system so that both existing and new members would contribute to the political fund only if they explicitly opted to do so. The Labour Opposition argued that this change would have a negative impact on the size of union political funds, and consequently Labour Party funding. They argued that this should be done only in the context of broader party funding reform. They were successful in establishing a Select Committee to consider the issue and to find a solution in parallel with the Bill’s progress.
I was asked to chair the committee, and several other members of the committee remain Members of the House today. The committee concluded that reintroducing an opt-in process for all members, including existing members, could significantly reduce the number of union members participating in political funds. It also concluded that this would lead to a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party while leaving donations to other parties unaffected.
A majority—but not all—of the committee concluded that the proposed requirement to opt in should not apply to existing members unless it was part of a broader reform of party funding. However, the committee unanimously decided that the opt-in mechanism should apply to all new members. After further debate, the Conservative Government accepted compromise amendments that limited the opt-in mechanism to new members, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side.
I acknowledge that there is no conclusive approach to determining whether opting in is better or worse than opting out. In some cases, opting out is deemed appropriate, such as in the case of workplace pensions, where the failure to opt in could result in future costs for government. However, evidence from various settings suggests that when it comes to making additional payments, more people will end up paying if they must opt out rather than opt in. The more cumbersome the administrative hurdles to opting out, the greater the likelihood an individual will not exercise their right to do so. Such administrative hurdles increase the likelihood that the outcome will not be in the best interests of the individual.
On balance, I prefer that we should ensure that people make informed decisions based on clear and transparent options. With most financial products—and decisions about allowing tech companies to use individuals’ data—there is a requirement to explicitly opt in. The concern is that allowing companies to require opt-out preys on people’s inertia. Furthermore, we have spent hours in this House debating the data Bill and the question of opting in or opting out of AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material. My own view is that requiring people to explicitly opt in reflects their preferences more accurately.
During a helpful conversation with the Minister, for which I am grateful, she emphasised that this is not simply a return to the position pre 2016. However, my fear is that in substance that is indeed what it is. I would welcome clarification on some aspects of the Government’s proposals. Will it be a requirement that the union’s application form for members joining a union continues to include a statement to the effect that a member may choose to opt out of the political fund and that they will not suffer any detriment if they choose not to contribute? Will new members have the option of choosing to opt out before completing the application? Why do the Government wish to change the requirement that a member be reminded annually of the right to opt out? The new proposal is that they should be reminded only every 10 years. What is the Government’s justification for this change?
Is there any reason why it should not be possible to give an unbiased choice at the time of joining? There could be two questions—two boxes—and a requirement to tick one box. One might say, “I wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”, and the other, “I do not wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”. The application would not be complete without ticking one or the other—a practice that we see very often these days, particularly with online applications. Does the Minister anticipate that the proportion of new members contributing to political funds will be higher under this legislation than has been the experience under the present 2016 Act and, if so, by how much?
Finally, I say this to the Government in the friendliest terms I can muster: why are they running the risk that the next time there is a change of government there will be another reversal which results in something less favourable to Labour than the 2016 compromise? Another reversal might well introduce the opt-in system for all members, both new and existing; in other words, the proposal on the table before the 2016 compromise that caused all the trouble at that point.
I stress that I have no view on whether trade union members’ contributions to political funds are too high or too low. Having tried, with a small amount of success, to find a resolution to the issue in 2016, my only ambition in involving myself in this Bill is to secure a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds that can stand the test of time, as I hoped the 2016 compromise would. The purpose of my amendment is to oppose the move to an opt-out mechanism until we have more justification for such a change and greater clarity about some of the questions I have outlined.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the Employment Rights Bill unamended and declare an interest as I was general secretary of the UK’s largest union, UNISON, for over 20 years. It has over 1.3 million members; over 1 million of them women, mainly low paid. I have seen at first hand over those 20 years the good which our political funds can do. In my own union the political funds support our campaigns—campaigns to reform the social care sector, which we have talked about often in this place; campaigns for fairer pensions for women, for better rights for disabled workers and human rights in Northern Ireland—and, something I am particularly proud of, our anti-racism work.
Our political funds support projects to bring children from Asian and white communities together. They fund our work tackling racism as part of HOPE not hate, and our work with footballers on Show Racism the Red Card in schools and at football matches over the past 20 years. The fund is used to send films to every school on the horrors of the Holocaust. It is used for ground-breaking initiatives to build fairer and safer communities. What many do not realise is that, without using the resources of our political funds, it would be unlawful for trade unions to campaign politically on behalf of members in any pre-election period—not just Westminster elections but all elections. The slow drain of money from the political funds caused by the 2016 Act and arrangements is having a serious effect on the right that trade unions have had for more than 100 years: the right to campaign politically.
How political funds are used varies from union to union. Many unions have political funds that are not affiliated to any political party, such as the National Education Union, the NASUWT and PCS, to name just three. Only 13 of the 48 unions in the TUC are affiliated to the Labour Party. My own union is affiliated, but it always makes it transparently clear when a member joins that their political contribution goes either to the Labour Link or to the non-affiliated section of the fund known as the campaign fund. New members can choose to pay into one or the other or both—or, until 2016, they could opt out. There were no subscription traps. New members were not misled. There were no barriers to opting out, and the opting out arrangement, as has been said, operated for more than 60 years through Labour, Tory and coalition Administrations before the 2016 Act.
It is with this in mind that I reflected on the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in reaching a way forward in 2016. I thank him for that, but I do not think that his amendment today should be progressed. It proposes that the 2016 arrangements continue under any new legislation. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue the amendment. Despite his good efforts, the 2016 arrangements have not proved a long-term solution for trade union political funds. They are gradually being drained of resources and, with that, so is the ability to campaign.
More to the point, in any democracy there will always be the threat that any incoming Government could put the clock back. There is always a very real possibility that we could get consistent ping-pong on many policies, not just on the political funds. Unfortunately, even if we leave things as they are, there is no guarantee that any change of government would not lead to another trade union Act more draconian than the 2016 Act. The possibility of consistent ping-pong in itself is not an argument for leaving things as they are; neither is it an argument for not returning to the principle of opting out, which operated for 60 years.
The Trade Union Act 2016 did what it intended to do. It deliberately placed considerable and costly burdens on trade unions, and it sought to reduce funding to the Labour Party. That was its purpose. But in doing that, it also compromised the ability of trade unions to provide a campaigning and political voice for working people in our country. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, unamended, is so important. That is why I ask noble Lords not to pursue the amendments to the political fund clauses of the Bill but to allow it to move forward unopposed.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but I did have the pleasure of working on the Trade Union Act in 2016. I well remember the setting up of the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding. Its report forced the requirement for new members to opt in to the political fund following its recommendations.
The committee was brilliantly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I know that phrases such as “showed the best of this House” can sometimes be overused, but in this instance it was absolutely the case. It reported, I think, in five weeks. The secretariat was absolutely magnificent. The most important thing was that it was a cross-party committee and produced a cross-party consensus on the recommendations in all but one area, which I will return to.
One of the key considerations, and the one that is pertinent to this amendment, was the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment that, in future, union members would be asked to opt in to contributing to their political fund, rather than just being given the opportunity of opting out. At the time, most members of a union with a political fund paid a political levy into the fund unless they took the active decision to opt out of doing so. I remember that the Select Committee spent a long time debating this. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, who said that this was the established practice for 60 years, but there was quite a strong debate. My noble friend Lord King felt that the King-Murray agreement had not been met in full with the requirements to report opting out.
The report produced some very helpful conclusions. One of the most relevant to today’s debate was that no one challenged the principle of moving from opt-out to opt-in. There were differences of opinion about how and when to make the move and, critically, whether it should apply to existing members, but the report basically accepted the principle. The Labour Party had some understandable concerns. It was fearful that a move to opt-in would mean that many union members would decide not to contribute to the political fund and that such a move was fundamentally unfair.
However, when Sir Nick Clegg appeared before the Committee, he said:
“I regard political opinion, affiliation and support as a sovereign decision for an individual citizen”.
He was, of course, completely right. Opt-in is supported because people should not be assumed to support any proposition, organisation, product or service, simply because they have failed, often through inertia, to say no. Companies have been rightly pilloried when they have assumed that the customer has signed up to something because they failed to tick a box or to see the small print. If a trade union member decides that he or she does not wish to contribute to a political fund, that is their decision; they should have the opportunity to actively choose to do so.
The behavioural experts consulted by the committee gave some powerful evidence about the impact of inertia on human behaviour. At the time, the power of inertia benefited the unions because only 11% of their members made the effort to opt out of the political fund. Under the then Government’s proposals, inertia would work against the unions. Human nature meant it would be extremely difficult to persuade existing members to make an active choice about whether to opt in. Indeed, Dr David Halpern of the Behavioural Insights Team said that analogous situations led him to expect a fall of 20% to 30% in political fund participation rates.
That brought us on to the second consideration, which was that the move to opt in for existing members would have an impact on the funding of one particular party, the Labour Party. On balance, the committee concluded that there would be a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee agreed that one way of easing this dilemma would be to distinguish between the requirements for new members and those for existing members of trade unions. For new members, it was unanimously agreed that opt-in was the correct way forward. Across many different walks of life, it is increasingly recognised that people should be asked to exercise an active choice and that organisations should not rely on inertia. The recommendation that, after a minimum transition period of 12 months, anyone joining a union with a political fund should pay the political levy only if they have actively chosen to do so was subsequently incorporated into the Trade Union Act 2016. It is that consensus that the Labour Party is seeking to undo today with this Bill.
This was not the case in the treatment of existing members. The fear was not of existing members choosing to opt out rather than opt in, but that they would simply choose to make no choice at all. I recall many heated discussions about whether the opt-in system should be extended to existing members, perhaps on a longer transition period than for new members, or whether existing contributors should not be included in the Act—option two. This was because it was feared that extending the opt-in to existing members would have a significant negative effect on union and Labour Party funding, even with an extended transition period. I well recall those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, talks about considerable unhappiness on our Benches, and he is not understating the case: when the second option was chosen, there were howls of “Bad faith!” It was at a critical juncture in the Brexit referendum period.
I rather subscribe to the view of Sir Winston Churchill:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr Speaker”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.]
Paragraph 115 of the Select Committee report stated:
“If any government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties, it would risk starting a tit-for-tat conflict which could harm parliamentary democracy”.
So, while it is wrong for a Government to use their power to undermine their opponents, it is also wrong for a Government to act in a way that leaves it open to question whether they are acting in the interests of the country as a whole or the interests of their own party.
The Labour Party’s dependence on trade union funds means that a policy could potentially be seen to be up for sale. Just as I had sympathy at the time with the need not to inflict damage on the finances of an opposition party, I find myself now more than a little bothered that the Labour Benches are seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle of opt-in so that their own party’s finances will be improved. I am sure that they would not wish to be accused of the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, but that is the effect of Clause 59. It is for this reason, and because of the compelling and universal arguments in favour of opt-in, that I have added my name in support of this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am sorry to do this to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on her birthday, but she was in a very key position in government for some time, so it would be helpful if, first, she could confirm, on the issue of ballot turnouts, that the previous Government, over their 14 years, received repeated representations from trade unions to enjoy the same rights that political parties enjoy to safe and secure balloting in a bid to boost democratic turnout in ballots, so that we would be able to encourage and engage more members in ballots. What we got, I think, was a review and a promise of a pilot that was never seen again.
Secondly, comparisons were made between trade union membership and subscriptions to commercial services, whereas, of course, membership of a democratic organisation which exists to defend your rights is not the same as a subscription to a for-profit service.
Finally, because we have heard a lot in this debate about balance, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the previous Government ever considered shareholders having the right to veto political donations by companies? I have never even heard of a shareholder’s right to opt out, never mind a requirement that they should opt in before a political donation is made by a company.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I cannot speak to the balloting, et cetera, which is out of the scope of this amendment. I can say that shareholders in companies are able to vote at their company’s AGM.
I did not pay tribute in my speech—and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis—to the brilliant political campaigns that were run by UNISON when I was in government. They were remarkable, and my support for opt-in does not diminish my admiration for them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I want to emphasise that, in a period of mass disillusion with mainstream parties, opt-in was actually a very important way of putting those parties on their guard that they had to inspire people to want to opt in. Relying on inertia, or not being in a situation where you feel you need to go out and win the support of people to opt in politically, is very dangerous, because it will create the kind of complacency that we have seen mainstream parties of all sides show over recent years.
I note that it would be dangerous—and I am sure that nobody is implying this—for the party of government, the Labour Party, to assume that it is any longer the party that represents the working class. Long gone are the days when that claim could be made, and I think that it would be better for that party to consider how it can inspire ordinary working people to support it, both at the ballot box but also in relation to something such as political funds. I had every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, talking about the difficulties of campaigning when you do not have enough money. Tell me about it: I have been doing it for years. I have not had a political fund to help, mind.
It all sounded very admirable, but it really did sound as though the noble Lord was discussing not so much UNISON but an activist campaign group, a particular group around particular issues. That is fine. I have no objection to that: I am involved in some of those campaigns, although not all of them. I have to go out and raise the funds in order to be able to carry on campaigning for things I believe in. I do not think it is right that trade unions use their political funds to pursue what are political issues beyond the issues of trade unionism. Trade unionism is a particular thing. It can inspire great political revolutions over the years, I agree, but it is not a hobby-horse for trade union bureaucrats to pursue the particular political issues that they enjoy or agree with.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall primarily speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Cash in respect of political funds, but I will say in passing that I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the excellent speeches of my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Finn not just erudite but very compelling.
There is a challenge to try to understand what has significantly changed that has led the Government to make these epochal amendments to what has been accepted by Governments of all persuasions—including, as has been said, the Blair and Brown Governments—which will radically alter industrial relations.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, those from my noble friend Lady Coffey—which I have signed, as she referred to—and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson, as well as Amendments 222, 223 and 218A. I hope I have covered all of them. I also support this group in more general terms. I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as declared in the register, in particular that I am a significant shareholder in a listed business, so I am an employer, and that I am a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I want to address what is a fundamental attack on one of the rights under the Human Rights Act by which we incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental democratic right not to be forced to support a political party, either unwittingly or by coercion—though I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that this is by coercion. My noble friends have referenced financial services and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced issues with data protection. We know that there are major problems with fundamental infringements of people’s rights when we have opt-out scenarios. People unwittingly continue to subscribe to pay when they should not do so.
Unlike my noble friend Lady Coffey, who politely said that she was surprised by this government proposal, I am shocked, because some noble Lords on the Government Benches have as much knowledge of human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights as I do. They will know that, under Article 11, there is a right to free association. We are guaranteed both the right to associate freely and the right not to be compelled into supporting associations or political causes.
This has been the subject of a number of decisions in the European Court of Human Rights. I know the Prime Minister has talked tentatively about whether we will remain part of the court, but for the time being we are and therefore have to abide by its laws and decisions. It made it very clear in a decision called Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom in 1981 that compelled political donations are incompatible with Article 11, unless free and informed consent is given by the individual.
There may be those on the Government Benches who think that that is fine because it is covered by the period of notice and the person can then opt out, but it does not cover that. There is no mechanism at all in the Government’s proposals to facilitate any refund. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis; I see that he is surprised by that comment, but there is no refund mechanism. The way that the measures are currently drafted means that there is a minimum notice period for an individual to be notified of their rights to opt out of up to eight weeks. After that, one payroll cycle is allowed before the opt-out takes place. That means there is the possibility of three months’ worth of subscription or levy being taken from an individual employee to contribute to the Labour Party. Let us not beat about the bush: this is a compelled donation to a political party.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness permit an intervention? As my noble friend Lord Prentis mentioned, there are 48 unions affiliated to the TUC; 13 of them also affiliate, subscribe and contribute to the funding of the Labour Party, and 35 do not. Most of those 35 have a political fund which they use to support their campaigning, but not to make contributions to the Labour Party.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that assistance. I therefore look forward to the amendment put forward by the Government to exempt those 13, given the law that I am explaining and the attack on the freedom of association that should be maintained in this country.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? She spoke about Article 11 of the European Convention and freedom of association, and the right to join a trade union and be a member for the protection of one’s interests. This is spelled out in Article 11.1. She mentioned the case of Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom, which established that there is a negative right not to become a member of a trade union, as well as a positive right to become a member. However, the European Court of Human Rights has never held in any case that a member of an organisation, a political party or a trade union can opt out of a particular payment that that organisation is making.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but he is wrong. The European Court has ruled that it is not possible. Article 11 does not permit compelling any citizen of this country, or any member of a trade union, to make a payment by political association. That is simply not correct.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Let me put it more respectfully: I disagree. That is not what the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 11 demonstrates. There is no right, if you are a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to opt out of any contribution or expenditure it makes on any particular objective. There is no such right established under Article 11. You can opt out of being a member of the organisation, but you cannot opt out of what it has decided to spend its money on. All you can do is exercise your rights under its constitution to object or decide it should be spent on something else.
Baroness Cash (Con)
The noble Lord is, very respectfully, making interventions which do not follow the law. I will quote a couple of other cases because that may assist the debate: Sigurdsson v Iceland, and Sorensen and Rasmussen v Denmark. The noble Lord can join the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and whether or not he opts out is not a matter for this debate. We are talking about the freedom to join a trade union, and the asking of those who have signed up to be a member of a trade union to contribute to campaigning funds—political funds. It is that political association—the taking of funding for that political association—which infringes the Article 11 right.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Forgive me, but those two cases do not demonstrate that. I am familiar with this jurisprudence; I suggest that the noble Baroness read the cases again.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I understand that in this House people sometimes disagree, and perhaps, respectfully, that is happening here. I can give way as many times as the noble Lord likes, but it is plain from the case law and the jurisprudence, and from how Article 11 is taught at law school, where I have taught it as a guest, that this is how freedom of association applies.
After an opt-out has been introduced, there is no refund mechanism available to cover the period during which the funds will be taken by 13 of the trade unions and passed to the Labour Party. At least we are now agreed that 13 of the unions will be giving the funds to the Labour Party. In those circumstances, we are compelling people to support it. It is because the Human Rights Act and the European Court jurisprudence intervened—that was part of the conversations when the opt-in was considered. Looking at the contributions, financial or otherwise, made during that period, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, for drawing our attention to the decrease in political funding that has ensued because of the change. We know that that is why this change back needs to be made, but that does not make it right.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I was around when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was chairing his committee and I was involved on the fringes of some of the work that was done. From the unions’ side, we appreciated very much what he did and the work the committee did with his colleagues. Getting that kind of arrangement was a get out of jail card for us—a halfway house, if you like, which is still promoted.
We were aware of the history. In 1927, when the Conservative Government introduced opting in instead of opting out, there was a catastrophic fall in the number of people who contributed to the union political fund; that was the truth of it. Unions did not have the administrative superstructure to go around and re-recruit people into that kind of arrangement. That was repealed by the Labour Government at the end of the Second World War, such was the anger about 1927—it was about the first thing they did. Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, unwisely said, “We are the masters now”, which caused a lot of controversy, so this is not a bloodless issue. This is about party funding and the sinews of keeping a great party going under a lot of pressure from all kinds of people.
We were very pleased, and warmly welcomed the work that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did. We had made an offer that maybe all party-political funding should be looked at. If there was some uneasiness about aspects of Labour’s arrangements, there is certainly some uneasiness about Conservative Party arrangements, which are not noted for their clarity and openness and all the other things the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have been extolling as virtues, which they are trying to install into the union world. We hear a lot from the Conservative Party about deregulating business all over the place, but—
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I just make the point that all political donations have to be transparently declared. My noble friend sitting next to me can explain more, as treasurer of the Conservative Party, but they are all declared.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I look forward to that degree of clarity in Conservative Party funding. We could all be enlightened by the explanation that I believe is about to come. We are talking about an amount of—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
We had an excellent debate 10 years ago. With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said that the transparency and clarity of donations to the Conservative Party leave something to be desired. Can he please be specific about this?
Lord Monks (Lab)
I will not be specific about it because I do not want to generally insult people, but over the years, there has been some dodgy funding of the Conservative Party. Maybe something has been done about it; maybe it has not. The noble Lord will tell us in a moment, I am sure.
I will say something about the amount of money we are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, touched on. In 2016, when I was much more au fait with this debate than I probably am today, the contribution that the union member made to the Labour Party was not much more than the price of a pint of beer. It has gone up a little bit if it is 10 quid now, but it was a modest amount. Comparisons with financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has made, are wrong, because the sums of money we are talking about there are much greater, and refunds, and all the rest of it. The kind of administrative fee that would be required for that amount of donation seems ridiculous.
On this side, we very much see this as an attempt to restore some Labour Party funding streams. I do, anyway—I will not speak for the Front Bench. I think it is important that the Labour Party gets the funding that it requires. I believe that going back to 1945, 1946 and so on is the right way to go, so I support the Government and the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading, although I have been watching this debate with great interest. As chairman of the Conservative Party, I am delighted that today we announced record donations into the Conservative Party. None of those donations was forced; none of them was given to us because we compelled people to give them to us; and they were not given to us because of an administrative system that prevented people taking their money out or opting out. It was because people voluntarily wanted to support the cause that we stand for.
On the same day that we announced record inflows, thanks in many instances to my noble friend Lord Leigh, the Labour Party also saw significant donations, not substantially to the level of the Conservatives’. I think half of the donations came from unions, but some came from a number of individuals, including in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Alli—who I cannot see in his place—who continues to support the Labour Party and is a good lesson for all Peers to support the parties which fostered them.
The point is that in our democracy, we live in an extraordinary country where voluntary contributions make up how parties are funded. At the essence, if you distort that, you have enormous problems with how the public perceive politics and the responsiveness that political parties need to show to the public who support them in the first place.
I am a great proponent of the union movement. I think it is an essential element of capitalism—it ensures that there is balance between labour and capital—but if you distort that, you distort the economy, nearly always to the negligence of the people who are members of those unions.
The reason I have not spoken before is that it had not actually occurred to me the sort of damage that this Government are trying to do to this country. I could not believe that it was going to be the case that people will be compelled, in effect, to join the Labour Party or to contribute to it—I had to sit in these debates and read back transcripts. We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who said exactly this: this is absolutely about redressing the balance in terms of party funding and to fund the Labour Party.
By the way, I respect that openness. The unions paid for the Labour victory and now they want to have their message delivered; they want the legislation moulded in their way. That is brutal politics of a kind that, frankly, I am just a bit squeamish about—but I rather admire.
I ask the Minister: is it really true that she is expecting people to be compelled to donate to a political fund, and that there is no mechanism for some form of compensation or redress if they decide to opt out? In a world where we can subscribe instantly to Apple Music, or whatever it is, at the touch of a button, and we are compelled to ensure that people’s subscriptions are reviewed on a constant basis, certainly annually at the absolute minimum, probably quarterly or maybe even monthly—rightly so—is it true that this mechanism will be reviewed every 10 years? It cannot be true that the Government are proposing 10 years beforepeople can see whether they should review their paperwork for a subscription to a political fund. This is remarkable.
I am actually amazed at the audacity, and I slightly admire it, as I said, but if we want a strong democracy and political parties that actually have trust placed in them by the people of this country, this sort of chicanery and gerrymandering is extremely dangerous. The amendments that have been proposed by Cross-Benchers are exceptionally eminent in the sense of making sure that we have a fair system to ensure that unions can indeed represent themselves politically. They can and should build political funds to advance their aims and some of the aims they have advanced over the last century or so are admirable, and I applaud them. But this must not be a mechanism for compelled donation to the Labour Party. It would be a disaster for our democracy, it would not benefit our unions and it would not help our country in any way at all—that is why I support these amendments today.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments and congratulate the speakers today—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I recall the debate some 10 years ago. I declare—although it has been declared for me—that I am senior treasurer of the Conservative Party and have been so for very many years.
The last time we had this debate, it was, shall we say, feisty. I was intervened on 12 times in one speech, which might be a bit of a record. It was a constructive debate, and I believe a solution was agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, says it is a get out of jail for the unions. We wanted more and for it not just to be new members—we wanted it to be existing members—but a compromise was agreed that everybody felt was fair. I hope that in the spirit of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, reflects on his remarks and finds an opportunity to withdraw any suggestion that there is anything dodgy or not clear about political donations to our party—I would not make the same allegations about his party—because it is not the case. There is strict legislation on declaring donations and we are very careful to abide by it.
The world is an upside-down sort of world, is it not? In actual fact, the single largest donation to the Labour Party is not from unions—it is from an individual person who came to this country, made a lot of money and chose personally to give a large sum of money to the Labour Party. Good luck to him. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we should commend and thank those people who wish to contribute politically to this country in whatever form they choose to do so, either going up and down streets waving leaflets and delivering them or choosing to give financially. Such people are good citizens to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.
The other upside-down world, of course, is the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, about shareholders. Public companies have an opt-in system. Every year, not every 10 years, shareholders have to vote for donations to be made to a political party if their company wishes to do it. So there is an opt-in for public companies, not that many public companies make donations to any political party—although I noticed in today’s submissions to the Electoral Commission that companies have chosen to give to the Labour Party, and good luck to them.
The history lesson that we have had is appropriate and relevant, because there is an element of toing and froing. The Burns report highlighted problems that had been in existence before the 2016 Act. It is worth reminding ourselves of those problems, because one would not want to see them again.
The Burns committee was told that the deal that existed between the Thatcher Government and the TUC had not been fulfilled, and that too many unions had failed to ensure that all union members were always aware of the fact that they did not need to contribute to the political fund. The then Government submitted written evidence that added that
“many unions that have a political fund are not transparent with members on their membership subscription forms about the existence of a political fund”,
and that
“their choice to opt-out of contributing to the fund; or the level of the member’s contribution towards the fund”
was not made clear. It stated that, of the 25 unions that had political funds in those days, 12 did not mention, on the subscription form,
“the existence of a political fund. Of the 11 unions that do reference a political fund … 5 do not make it clear that a member has a choice to opt-out”.
That was then, and that is not a situation that anyone, I think, would want to see come back—but there is a danger of that with this legislation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the amendments seeking greater transparency for trade union members on where their money goes.
I support the retention of the status quo—so that people have to opt in—and maintaining the changes we saw made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They do not attack the existence of the status quo or the political fund, which is, as is often announced on the websites of the unions, a campaigning fund. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that it is made clear by UNISON and Unite to new members, when joining, what their fees are for. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party, and some of the funds of political campaigning will indeed go to the Labour Party. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that 13 were affiliated; I had the figure of 11 in my head, but that is only a small difference.
None of that is under attack; that is a subject for another debate. I would like to stress to your Lordships why I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This area has been very contentious for a century, and every single attempt to reach a settlement has involved compromise. Although one may think that the opting-in arrangement of the 1927 Act was against the interests of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the General Strike of 1926 and that the Conservative Party, which was the party of government, would not follow the inclination of many of its Back-Benchers—and, I think, one of its Front-Benchers, but I will not say whom —to get rid of the political fund. The Prime Minister of the day said, “We will not fire the first shot”.
That was an attempt to find a compromise, so that the trade unions could keep their political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party—which was a founder party and recognised as such by the Conservatives—and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. I agree that they have done great work, through their membership fees, on pensions and so on. Much of the settlement on the national insurance system not only drew on trade union knowledge and experience in practice but used their funds to nationalise —which I think was a less good idea.
We should have a spirit of compromise and reflect the compromise that was made in 2016. If we go down the route that the Government propose, I hope that the party on my side will again seek to bring in a compromise, because the laws of this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency for all those affected by them. That goes for trade unionists in the workplace, who should have to opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.
While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.
While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, what an important debate this has been. I think 14 noble Lords have participated, starting with my noble friend Lady Coffey. She dealt with Clause 58 in particular, whereas most of the rest of the debate has been around Clause 59.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. His speech dominated the debate, as he set out so clearly the history of what he described as the 2016 compromise—which in fact it was—that Clause 59 now seeks to overturn. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, about the importance of campaigning and seeing full participation in that area. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for coming specially on her birthday to remind us all of the role she played on the Burns committee. Despite interruptions, she got across a series of key points about that compromise. Those who were interrupting her did not seem to realise that shareholders have to approve any political donations made by companies—but never mind.
I move on quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Cash, who had a fascinating exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, speaking now as a practising lawyer, that my noble friend Lady Cash is right: if money is taken for any period without knowledge or consent, freedom of association has been removed—it does not matter whether it is for a week, a month or a decade. In a way, though, that was a side issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, then took us way back in time. We all always benefit from the noble Lord, Lord Monks. I still have the guilty feeling that I caused a cartoon to be shown in the Guardian showing him getting into bed with me, in which his was the face on a huge cart horse. I was Secretary of State for Employment, and I was being accused by the Guardian of being too nice to the trade union movement by getting into bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks—but we are not in the same bed tonight.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who really put the record straight and elevated the sort of smears that were thrown—usually from a sedentary position—from the party opposite in that context. My noble friends Lord Leigh and Lady Lawlor did the same. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for really trying to encapsulate what has been a very complicated and detailed debate.
Let us be clear on one thing—and it is up to the Minister to respond to all the very valid points that have been raised: Clause 59 says that workers will be presumed to consent to union political contributions unless they actively opt out. This is a fundamental shift. It reverses the presumption of consent in a way that would never be tolerated were it an employer imposing such terms on a worker. Where, then, is the Government’s concern for free choice, transparency and the dignity of the individual to act without coercion? Surely, if we are to be consistent in protecting worker autonomy, we must apply the same standards to trade unions as we do to employers. Anything less is not principle; it is partisanship.
The Bill includes provisions that would require employers to provide workers with written statements outlining their trade union rights on day one of employment and at other points that the Government see fit. But until Amendment 218 comes along, that principle appears to vanish entirely so far as political fund contributions are concerned. A worker can be enrolled into a union and begin contributing to political causes, most often aligned with one single political party, without ever being clearly and directly told what that money supports or how to stop contributing. I believe that to be a serious democratic deficit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling their amendments.
I start by speaking to Amendment 217. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for the constructive engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds in recent weeks and for his thoughtful contributions to this debate. I echo the points a number of noble Lords have made on that. I am grateful for his considerable work in chairing the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her work on that committee.
However, the Government’s view is that the political fund changes brought in by the Trade Union Act 2016 had the impact of limiting unions’ ability to raise funds to enable them to campaign on political issues that were important to them. Therefore, as we have been debating, the Bill repeals the requirement for trade unions to opt out their members from contributions to political funds, unless they have expressly requested to opt in. This will mean that new trade union members will be automatically opted in to contributions to a political fund unless they expressly opt out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about Churchill’s quote on avoiding tit for tat in parliamentary democracies. However, what we are proposing broadly restores the position before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, which had been the position for the previous 70 years. So our proposal is a very long- standing set of propositions. I should also say to noble Lords that the change we are proposing will apply only to new members of a trade union, with the current opt- out status of existing members remaining unchanged.
Several noble Lords have described workers as being “compelled” to make political donations to the Labour Party. This is simply not the case. It remains a decision for each individual trade union member that they are free to make as to whether they wish to contribute to any political fund of a trade union.
The Government have been mindful of the conclusions of the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee, and indeed we have learned lessons from that report. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, that we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form that they will have to fill in when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the noble Lord’s committee, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership.
This is a substantial change to the legal requirements that existed pre 2016. These changes to the system that existed before 2016 should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. Unions will also be required to send an opt-out reminder notice to members on a 10-year basis.
We have been clear on our intention to substantially repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, as set out in our Make Work Pay plan. Retaining the automatic opt-out, as proposed by this amendment, would frustrate the goal and maintain unnecessary and burdensome requirements on the way that trade unions manage their political funds.
I should have responded earlier to one of the other questions from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about the Government’s impact assessment. The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act set out:
“The return to an ‘opt-out’ option for political fund contributions for new union members with political funds may increase the proportions of new members contributing to the political fund in these unions”.
So we have made an assessment of that.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and others, that what we are proposing is clearly not the same as consumers spending billions of pounds each week on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes. What we are proposing here is that a union, which is a collective of workers, and its political fund should be considered in that light. If a union has a political fund, its members have control over how their political fund is spent, through the democratic structures of the union. Unions put considerable effort into raising engagement in their democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning that they are able to decide on how their political fund is used.
I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Prentis for reminding us of that and indeed giving us some very good examples of how his political fund has been used in campaigning. He and others also made the point that less than half of the unions that have political funds affiliate to the Labour Party. Indeed, only a minority of Labour Party funds at the last election came from unions’ political funds.
I turn to Amendments 221, 222, 223, 223A and 223B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Section 84A specifies that a union must send information notices reminding its members of the right to opt out of contributing to the union’s political fund, should one exist. Amendments 221, 222 and 223 would introduce the requirement on trade unions to send those notices to members every two years, as opposed to every 10 years, as specified in the Bill. We acknowledge that the removal of the 10-year political fund review ballots could reduce awareness among trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund contributions. This is why we amended the Bill to require that unions send opt-out reminders on a 10-year basis.
The Government believe that 10 years strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining awareness among members of their right to opt out of contributing to a political fund while minimising the administrative and cost burdens on unions of providing such a notification. It also reflects the current arrangements for the 10-yearly review of ballots and recognises that the Bill will ensure that new members will already have been made aware of their right to opt out when they apply for union membership.
Amendment 223A would require unions to issue opt-out information notices that comply with specific requirements. The Bill will require unions to issue opt-out notices that comply with the rules of the union. Unions must provide the certification officer with a copy of their opt-out notice. Members of a trade union will be able to complain to the certification officer if they do not believe that an opt-out notice complies with Section 84A of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In those circumstances, the certification officer can issue an order to remedy this failure if the complaint is upheld. So this amendment is unnecessary as there are already requirements for opt-out notices that unions must comply with.
Amendment 223B would grant the certification officer the capacity to conduct audits of opt-out notices to monitor compliance with Section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Bill. The legislative framework as amended by the Bill will allow the certification officer to investigate complaints from members about failure to comply with Section 84A, but the power to conduct audits is unnecessary and disproportionate to the rest of the powers of the certification officer, who will continue to hold their powers after the repeal of the Trade Union Act.
Amendment 218, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require trade union members to confirm their ongoing willingness to contribute to a political fund on an annual basis, and they would need to be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund. As I have mentioned, we believe that requiring unions to issue opt-out reminders to members every 10 years is proportionate and aligns with the current frequency of 10-year review ballots. The Government also believe that, if members have joined a union and are notified of their right to opt out, their decision not to opt out clearly reflects their consent to make political fund contributions. Asking members to reconfirm their willingness to contribute to the union’s political fund on an annual basis would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden on unions and their members. Indeed, members are not currently required to restate on a regular basis their preference to either opt in or opt out of political fund contributions.
Amendment 218B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would alter Section 84 to require unions to provide members with a defined means of opting out of political fund contributions, including a digital option and allowing the certification officer to issue guidance or prescribe minimum technical standards on the opt-out notice. We are already clear in the Bill that members of a trade union are able to be served an opt-out notice via post, email, completion of an electronic form or such other electronic means as may be prescribed. Therefore, we are already making it easy and straight- forward for members to express their decision to opt out should they so desire. The certification officer already issues a set of model rules for political funds, and the rules of every union’s political fund must be approved by the certification officer.
Amendment 218C would create a statutory right for members not to suffer any detriment when deciding to opt out of political fund contributions, and it would allow members to complain to the certification officer where they feel that that right has been breached. Such an amendment is unnecessary, given that Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already compels unions to inform members in their union rules that they shall not be placed at a disadvantage or disability compared with other union members, nor will they be excluded from benefits, if they decide not to contribute to the political fund. Members can also complain to the certification officer if that rule is breached.
Amendment 218D would require unions to issue an opt-out reminder notice on the day that a member joins the union. Through Clause 59, which amends Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, we will require unions to inform members of their right to opt out of political fund contributions on any forms, including electronic forms, that members must complete in order to join a union. This requirement will make the need to provide new members with an opt-out notice on joining a union superfluous.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the Minister clarify—to be absolutely crystal clear—that, by removing Section 32ZB, union members will have absolutely no idea where campaign money is being spent?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thought I answered that: the information on the expenditure of the political fund will still have to be given to the certification officer.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With great respect, I asked whether union members would have clarity as to where their money was being spent.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am absolutely confident that unions’ accounts, which will include the political funds, will be available to all members in the usual way. I am sure that is a requirement.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
I can inform the noble Lord that unions have to produce an executive report for the membership every year. That is available to all the membership; it is on the union’s website. In most unions, by the rulebook, the executive report is the first thing debated at conference. All the union’s activities and expenditure are described and explained to the membership in that report, including the amount of the political fund and the expenditure of the political fund. It is the same with the international fund and the campaigning fund. This is a requirement, as part of unions’ democratic processes, to make the executive accountable to the membership, and the information will be contained in the executive report.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am grateful for that. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, if that is true—and it certainly was not pre-2016—there can be no resistance to it being included—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
It was certainly not disclosed in the political fund accounts, which are not the same as the union accounts; they are separate accounts. Those political fund accounts did not specify where the campaign funds were spent.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
The noble Lord asked where the members would get the information. That is the question to which I have replied. He is now saying that they are not disclosed in another place, but that was not the question I was answering.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think we have answered that question in quite a lot of detail now. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have answered these points in sufficient detail.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
We appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into, but a number of questions have not been answered. Can she undertake to write to noble Lords with the answers? Also, can she clarify whether, if a union member fails to opt out of contributing to the political fund on day 1, they could then be bound not to have the opportunity to opt out again for 10 years?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am absolutely confident that union members can opt out at any time, not just every 10 years. It is the reminder that goes every 10 years, rather than the requirement for them to remain.
We have had a very detailed, long debate, and I have attempted to answer all the questions noble Lords have raised. If there are any outstanding issues, I will write. In the meantime, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her Amendment 216YC.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this extensive debate. There are still a number of issues on which there is not agreement, either on the nature of the legislation or the desired effect.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I am conscious that this is going over old ground, but he is right to resurrect it and to put his concerns forward. On the exchanges between my noble friend Lady Cash and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in any legal debate, normally we come up with one winner. However, in this case, it is fair to refer the noble Lord to paragraph 251 of the Bill’s human rights memorandum, where the Government specifically state that:
“Implicit in Article 11 is a right not to contribute to a trade union’s political fund”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would, unusually perhaps, be open to sharing the legal or policy advice on the bracketed portion of that paragraph: that
“the opt-out will take effect on 1 January of the following year”.
That is why my noble friend Lady Cash was pressing the point that continuing to have to pay would not, according to various judgments, be compatible with Article 11.
That said, I am sure that we will return to a lot of this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Free School Meals
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for this opportunity to understand the Statement on free school meal expansion rather better. I acknowledge that parents and children in receipt of universal credit will welcome the Government’s announcement, and many across the House will welcome a review of school food standards. However, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified a number of points about how this change will work in practice.
As the Minister knows, transitional protections established in 2018 ensured that pupils who were eligible for free school meals would keep them during the universal credit rollout. This nearly doubled free school meal eligibility, from 13.6% to 25.7%. The Department for Education has now announced that these protections will end in September 2026 with the introduction of the new policy. However, it is not clear how many children will be affected by this.
Dr Tammy Campbell, director for early years, inequalities and well-being at the Education Policy Institute, said:
“To the best of our knowledge, the Department for Education has not fully assessed the number of children who will cease to be eligible for FSM as a result of the conclusion of transitional protections”.
She added:
“It is possible that the extension of eligibility will largely serve to balance out the cessation of transitional protections, rather than making significant numbers of children newly eligible”.
Can the Minister confirm whether the department has done such an assessment and, if so, what are the figures that it revealed? If it has not done one, when will that happen?
Can the Minister clarify the position in relation to pupil premium funding, since eligibility for free school meals is currently the gateway to the pupil premium? The pupil premium, which was a significant achievement of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, provides £1,480 per primary school pupil and over £1,000 per secondary school pupil. My understanding is that the Government initially said that the link between the two will be broken, but then said in a second announcement that the total amount will remain unchanged. Can the Minister confirm exactly the Government’s position, how that will work in practice and whether the Government are indeed committed to the full £3 billion or so of pupil premium funding continuing?
The Government’s announcement included other important figures relating to child poverty, including that this change will lift 100,000 children out of poverty. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the timescale for that change. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that, in the longer term, it believes the policy will lift 100,000 children out of poverty, but it cautioned that, due to the phasing out of the transitional measures which I mentioned earlier, the short-term costs and benefits are likely to be far more limited. Christine Farquharson, associate director of the IFS, said that we will
“not see anything like 100,000 children lifted out of poverty next year”.
How long does the Minister think it will take to reach the Government’s targets? How many children does she believe will be lifted out of poverty next year?
Finally, can the Minister confirm how this policy applies to holiday activities, food funding and home to school transport? Will schools and local authorities continue to receive pupil premium and home to school transport funding based on the existing free school meals threshold or the expanded criteria? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we very much welcome the Minister’s Statement. As we heard, over half a million more children will benefit from a free, nutritious meal every day. The Government have estimated that this will put £500 back into parents’ pockets. In the coalition, as we heard, we introduced a free meal for every key stage 1 pupil and prepared to extend this to key stage 2. This is excellent news for parents and their children.
As a primary school head teacher, I was always concerned that the number of pupils’ parents who did not take up the free school meal entitlement was quite alarming. Despite numerous personal letters to those parents, newsletters and all the rest, they still did not take up their entitlement. That is why auto-enrolment of free school meals at a national level ensures that every child gets the meal they are entitled to. Will the Government now follow the example of many successful local authorities and introduce auto-enrolment for meals, and if not, why not?
As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, many vulnerable children spend many weeks each year not in school during the holidays. Will the Government take the opportunity to end holiday hunger and perhaps look at the feasibility of funding for meals during school holidays?
Children on free school meals, particularly those in more affluent areas, often feel embarrassed and stigmatised, and are sometimes bullied, because they are having free meals. Will the Minister assure the House that confidentiality will be maintained at all times for those who are entitled to a free meal?
I realise that the Statement was about free school lunches, but can the Minister update us on the number of children receiving breakfast and the timescale for rolling this out to more schools? The Minister is probably aware of the letter from a whole host of children’s charities about the problems of free breakfast for those children with special educational needs, which I have no doubt will come up during the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
We on these Benches have been pushing hard for the provision of free school meals in schools; it was in our manifesto. It is a victory for thousands of passionate campaigners, and the Government have listened.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, when this Government came into office there were 900,000 more children living in poverty than there had been when the Labour Government left office in 2010. This was a stain on our country. It was a terrible way for those children to live, preventing them having what they needed day-to-day and limiting their opportunities for the future. That is why this Government have announced the biggest expansion of free school meal eligibility in England in a generation, because we can and we must end the scourge of child poverty.
That is why we will give every child whose family is in receipt of universal credit the entitlement to free school meals. That means not simply meals in mouths but, crucially, money back into the pockets of parents and families on an unprecedented scale. It means that 500,000 more children per year will be entitled to free school meals. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, it means that, over the course of this Parliament, 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty.
I commend the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to asking questions to gain some confidence and elucidation from me—an approach very different from that of the shadow Education Secretary, who did not allow the facts to get in the way of her tweeting completely erroneous information about the Government’s proposals. I will respond to the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness.
First, we have been clear that transitional protections will now be extended to 2026, when all children whose families are in receipt of universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. At that point, we will bring to an end the transitional protections that were put in place to protect entitlement as universal credit rolled out.
Secondly, the Government will continue to spend £3 billion on pupil premium and disadvantage this year. In 2026, the total will remain the same, on the basis of the level of those who would have been entitled to free school meals. Over the longer term, we will take action to consider the most appropriate way to distribute the funding necessary to respond to disadvantage and support schools in a range of ways, so that they can use it to help ensure that all children can succeed, regardless of their disadvantage.
The holiday activity fund will also remain at existing levels. It will enable local authorities to have, as they already do, the flexibility and funding to ensure provision for children who need it.
The entitlement to home school transport will remain the same, based on the current eligibility criteria post 2026, so no children will lose their entitlement to extended home school transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about take-up. First, it is likely that the simplicity of now basing the entitlement on universal credit means that it will be much clearer to families, when they claim universal credit, that they are automatically entitled to free school meals. In addition, the Government are also improving the ability for not only local authorities but parents and families to check their eligibility more clearly than they have been able to until this point.
Lord Storey (LD)
If we find that that is not having the take-up that we hope for, will the Government look at auto-enrolment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government are extending the entitlement to free school meals because we want children to benefit from them. We will keep under review the extent to which those free school meals and all the benefits that come with them are being taken up.
The noble Lord made a point about the stigma that some children and families feel. I know that many schools are—all schools should be—very careful about the way in which they identify which children are eligible for free school meals and which are not. We have moved some way from the terrible times when those children eligible for free school meals had to sit at separate tables and all the awful things that I know some people have experienced or certainly heard of. Schools will work hard to make sure that there is confidentiality and that that stigma is removed.
On the point about breakfast clubs, we have ensured that, from this April, there are 750 early adopter breakfast clubs across the country, having significantly increased the investment in those breakfast clubs to £30 million. As the noble Lord says, we will be able to consider this and the further rollout of breakfast clubs in more detail when we come to that part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will put the Government’s intention to ensure that all children in primary schools can benefit from breakfast clubs into legislation.
This considerable investment in our children is a significant sign of this Government’s commitment to tackling the scourge of child poverty. It is, as the Prime Minister says, a “down payment” on the Government’s child poverty strategy and it is symbolic of the difference that a Labour Government make.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the extension of free school meals. It is important for children and for parents in poverty. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said about it being a down payment on the child poverty strategy, but I echo my Commons colleagues who argued that it cannot be a substitute for the abolition of the two-child limit on universal credit. Given that the real benefit of the free school meals extension will not be felt until September 2026, that it is estimated that over 100 children are falling into poverty every day that the two-child limit continues, and that parents and children are really struggling now, will my noble friend please impress on the Chancellor and the Prime Minister the need for urgent action on the two-child limit?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that, as I think she has conceded, this considerable investment in our children is urgent action on tackling the issue of child poverty—as have been the Government’s investment in breakfast clubs already; our plans to limit the cost of school uniforms; the increase in the national minimum wage, adding an additional £1,400 to the income of those poorest families; the extension of the entitlement to free childcare; the uprated benefits this year; and the way in which the Government has supported 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. But I agree with her that there is more to do. That is why the child poverty task force is currently looking at all the levers that could be used to support children out of poverty, including income, housing, energy costs and the availability of work for our poorest families. This is, as I have already emphasised, the latest step to put extra money into people’s pockets, building on action that this Government have already taken. It is a down payment on our child poverty strategy, where work continues, and the Government will have more to say.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I quote from the Statement that
“it is an investment in our children’s futures. It sets them free from the worries and strains of growing up in poverty”.
Does the Minister agree that, if this is the Government’s aim, there should be compulsory financial education in schools about pensions? A £50 pension contribution every month from the age of 18 can produce £363,000 at retirement age. The excellent brief last year from the House of Lords Library stated that there were
“concerns have been raised that financial education is not being adequately provided”.
How will the Government ensure that education on pensions is being properly taught and help to end poverty?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On Thursday, I think I will have the opportunity to answer a Question in this House on financial education in schools. Of course, I agree with the noble Earl that it is important that children develop the mathematical and business skills to understand the decisions that they then need to make about their own and their family’s money, and he makes an important point about pension contributions —notwithstanding his argument that young people should start them from the age of 18. I am not quite sure whether, in primary school, you can embed in a child’s mind the significance of that, but he makes an important point about ensuring that people understand the importance of pensions. Of course, hopefully, those children will look to their grandparents and the additional funding that they will receive as a result of this Government’s ability to maintain the triple lock, and they will see that investing in a pension is a good thing to do.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement. It really is good news. I particularly welcome the look at nutritional standards. We talked about resources in, but, in education, we use free school meals as a measurement not only for money going into the school but for attainment levels, and that has become quite a considered and important way of monitoring performance and improvement. Have the Government given any thought to how having so many more children entitled to free school meals will affect that set of statistics, and does more work need to be done on that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes two important points. First, she is right that, alongside this announcement, we have also said that we think now is the right time to review the nutritional standards for school food. My ministerial colleagues have already begun work with stakeholders on scoping out what will happen there and how those standards can be brought up to date. It is an important point that quite often accountability measures—analysis and monitoring of attainment—is based on a proxy of free school meals for disadvantage. The department will look at other ways of measuring that disadvantage and the way in which that can then be used to ensure attainment. Even more importantly, as I am sure my noble friend will have noticed, the Secretary of State is absolutely clear that the most disadvantaged groups need to have a better deal and to be supported to perform better in our schools than has been the case until this point, and she will do everything necessary not only to measure how effective that is, but to ensure that it happens as well.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this announcement, as others have done, because, in the words of the Statement, it is not just anti poverty but pro learning. As chair of the E-ACT multi-academy trust, I see the context of too many children’s lives coming through our school gates every day. I also note the disconnection with pupil premium and free school meals eligibility. What advice does the Minister have for schools wanting to run registration campaigns for pupil premium without the literal carrot of free school meals?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right of course about the importance of the contribution to learning. I think it is hard to envisage how children can focus on the learning that needs to happen without having nutritious, good food inside them both first thing in the morning from our breakfast clubs and of course at lunchtime as well. The important point about the pupil premium, as my noble friend will know very well, is that, while it has been allocated and designated on the basis of individual pupils’ entitlements, it is spent within schools on a range of different activities. It is not attached to a single pupil. That is why I think the Government will want to undertake some serious thinking about how to maintain and improve the support that is available for ensuring that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds get the support in schools that they can, without depending in the long term on the link to entitlement for free school meals. Of course, in the short term, not least because free school meal entitlement based on the current criteria lasts for six years, there will be a considerable amount of time when that could be used to allocate pupil premium, but there needs to be work on ensuring that funding for disadvantage can continue for students to be used as effectively as possible by schools.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I join the congratulations to my noble friend and the Government. This is very good news at a time when good news is particularly welcome. I also welcome the welcome from the Lib Dem Front Bench and the very responsible and sincere questions about how many children will benefit from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Does my noble friend agree that compulsory education for primary and secondary school children was one of the greatest things about the post-war, cross-party human rights consensus? Does she also agree that we would not dream of charging children or parents for heating, security and pencils during the compulsory school day and therefore it was always a little odd that food was charged for? Given the concerns about the number of children who benefit, stigmatisation et cetera and all the obvious logic that we have heard from noble friends about the learning benefits as well as the anti-poverty benefits of nutrition in school, might we one day, with this level of consensus, aspire to—my noble friend chuckles because she knows where I am going with this—universal free school meals for every child or young person in compulsory education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the things I have noticed about this House is the ambition of noble Lords. They are not satisfied with the status quo. In fact, they are not satisfied with the next stage of development; they push for more.
My noble friend will understand that this big increase in entitlement represents a considerable financial investment in children by the Government. There is, of course, entitlement to universal free school meals for infant-aged children. For the time being, we will have to celebrate, and ensure that we properly implement, this increase in entitlement, but I note the ambition of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and other noble friends on this issue.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my deep concern about the inclusion of the clause repealing Section 116B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and to urge that it be removed in its entirety from the Bill. The clause does not merely tidy up legislation or modernise outdated provisions, it seeks to dismantle a vital safeguard that upholds the principle that taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidise the activities of private organisations, no matter how long-standing or worthy those organisations may be.
Section 116B was introduced to ensure that where public sector employers agree to deduct trade union subscriptions directly from employees’ pay, a service commonly known as check-off, the administrative cost of doing so is reimbursed by the union. This is a reasonable and proportionate expectation. After all, unions are private membership organisations. It is not the role of the taxpayer to underwrite the cost of maintaining their finances, especially when alternative methods of payment, such as direct debit, are readily available and commonly used by the unions themselves. Repealing this provision would, in effect, shift the cost burden for this private financial arrangement on to public sector employers and, by extension, the taxpayer. These are costs that would be no longer recoverable, whether they involve payroll staff time, IT systems or administrative oversight.
Although each individual deduction might seem minor, across large public bodies—for example, the NHS, schools, local authorities or Whitehall departments —these costs accumulate. The public purse, as noble Lords opposite do not need reminding, is already under immense pressure and it should not be expected to shoulder this additional financial responsibility. There is a very real risk that this repeal, however well-intentioned, would result in taxpayers unknowingly subsidising trade union operations.
Moreover, Section 116B introduced a measure of transparency and accountability into the system. It ensured that unions have to make active choices about how they collect their subscriptions and whether to invest in alternative systems, such as direct debit. It also gave employees greater awareness of and control over how they supported union activity. Removing this provision without putting any comparable mechanisms in place risks eroding that transparency. It suggests a return to a one-size-fits-all approach in which the employer bears the cost and the worker has little visibility over the arrangements.
There is also the issue of equity. Public sector employers are distinct in that they are funded by the state and their accountability is to the taxpayer. In the private sector where check-off arrangements still exist, employers and unions are free to negotiate the terms of such systems, including where the cost should be reimbursed. Why should public employers uniquely be placed in a position where they must provide these services at their own expense without any form of compensation? It is a contradiction that undermines the rationale for removing Section 116B.
The proposed repeal would also remove the flexibility that currently exists in the system. Under Section 116B, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations specifying exceptions, such as for devolved Administrations or specific categories of public bodies. That allows the provision to be adapted in a way that respects local autonomy; for example, in Wales, where different arrangements have been supported by the devolved Government. By removing the entire provision, this clause strips away that flexibility and imposes a blunt uniformity that does not reflect the complexities of public sector governance across the United Kingdom.
Finally, we must consider the broader message that this repeal sends. It risks creating the impression, fair or not, that trade unions are being afforded preferential treatment and being allowed to impose their operating costs on to the taxpayer without scrutiny. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile and when every pound of public spending is rightly under the microscope, this is a deeply unhelpful signal to send.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for posing arguments against Clause 60 standing part of the Bill.
This clause seeks to repeal Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove Section 116B. Section 15 required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administer payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions, known as check-off. It further required that this service be made available only where workers have the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 were introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the following 10 years. However, as the impact assessment acknowledged, the regulations would bring a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period. This is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
The current system places bureaucratic processes on both trade unions and public sector employers that can be clearly simplified to support productive trade union relations. There should be no costs to employers associated with withdrawing the check-off regulations. Employers will have the choice to continue with or amend any agreed arrangements regarding the deduction of union subscriptions from their employees’ wages, in discussion with their recognised trade unions.
We feel that there is a need to simplify this process, which is what our proposals intend to do. While I thank the noble Lord for this very short debate, I urge him to support this clause, for the reasons I have set out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanation, although I am not particularly persuaded.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled a number of probing amendments to Clause 61. As I alluded to earlier, I take the view that the amendments are not unhelpful but should be seen through the prism of fairness, balance, proportionality and reasonableness. There is the possibility that, as drafted, it could plausibly be argued that the Bill’s balance is very much in favour of not just employees and union members but unions themselves as corporate bodies and organisations, rather than employers.
We are on our eighth day in Committee, and we have discussed on a number of occasions the less than benign economic circumstances faced by many businesses, including small businesses. The situation is deteriorating. Pretty much every week, there is worse economic data than one would hope for, particularly for the jobs market and the levels of employment and potential unemployment.
Therefore, anything that the Government do—and certainly this Bill represents a very far-reaching change to the employment relations regime—to make things more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises, and businesses generally, to employ people should be a cause for concern for Members of your Lordships’ House.
I will briefly go through the amendments. Amendment 224 would qualify the right to time off for union officials with a reasonableness test. I can see that most relationships between employers and union representatives are positive, based on mutual respect and it was ever thus. Therefore, this will not be a problem for the vast bulk of employers. However, when I was a local councillor, I had to rely on the Employment Rights Act 1996 to enforce my right to attend a number of meetings held during the day—in my case, at Ealing Borough Council, although I was an alternate member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which met across the road at County Hall. As a young working man, it was sometimes very difficult to get time off, and I understand that we went in the right direction in guaranteeing the right to time off. Equally, reasonableness is key, and this amendment speaks to that.
Amendment 225 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union officials with an appropriateness test. Again, this reflects a real-world experience of the discrete circumstances affecting a business at the time that the request is made. It might not be appropriate for a business to provide a room, audio-visual facilities or materials. This would be easier for a big company, which has a bespoke budget for HR training et cetera, than for a much smaller commercial entity, which might struggle to provide a similar level of facilities for trade union officials.
Amendments 226, 227 and 228 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union activities, and therefore there would be more of a balance for making the case for facilities being provided. I do not want to delay the Committee at this relatively late juncture; the amendments stand on their own merits.
Amendment 229 would qualify the right to time off for union learning representatives, again with a reasonableness test. In past debates, I mentioned my admiration for the Workers’ Educational Association and the great work it did in empowering working people to improve their life and their life chances, which is very important. However, a reasonableness test makes sure that it can be accommodated in a way which will not undermine the commercial viability of a business, while at the same time assisting individual workers and their representatives to deliver education and training outcomes.
Amendment 230 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union learning representatives, again with an appropriateness test.
Amendments 231, 232 and 233 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union learning representatives. It would be for the union representatives to explain why their request for facilities and learning resources was reasonable rather than the other way round.
These are probing amendments. I know I have said it before, but it bears repetition that these are not wrecking amendments. They do not alter substantially the kernel of the Bill, which is—and I take Ministers on their word—to improve the working lives of people, as in the report, Make Work Pay. I accept that premise and that Ministers sincerely want to do that, but these amendments are an attempt to rebalance between the workforce, their representatives and employers in a fair and equitable way. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose the question that Clause 62 should stand part of the Bill, with the intention of removing provisions which compel employers to allow time off for trade union equality reps. To note, I am not opposed to trade union facilities time per se, and I am actually not objecting to Clause 61 in relation to learning reps.
My concern is specifically on the nature of equality as has been interpreted by the trade unions in recent years, the divisive nature of their adherence to identity politics, for example, and the ideologically contentious implementation of prescriptive policies, often setting one group of workers against another. Trade union priorities under the auspices of fighting for equality have been skewed, to say the least.
The wording in this unfeasibly long clause states at subsection (12)(b)(i) that:
“‘equality’, in relation to a workplace, means … the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation … in accordance with the Equality Act 2010”.
You would think I would have nothing to disagree with there, yet, time after time in the last few years, what we have actually seen is the discrimination and victimisation of women workers that has been at best ignored and too often actively abetted by trade unions’ own version of inclusive equality. They have in fact ignored the Equality Act.
Let me use as an example an incident that happened in May 2024 at Epsom and St Helier University Hospital. A black female nurse, Jennifer Melle, indirectly called a six-foot transgender patient “Mister” while on the phone to a consultant. The patient, whom I will call Mr X, was having treatment on the ward, having been transferred from a male prison. He was chained to two guards. Mr X is serving a sentence for luring young boys into sex acts on the internet while pretending to be a woman. For Ms Melle’s alleged misgendering, Mr X, the convict, violently lunged at her, screaming, “Do not call me Mister, I’m an effing woman”, and then called her the N-word, screaming it at her. He of course used the full words in those instances, and he screamed that word at her three times.
After her shift, Jennifer went home shaken but resilient about the reality of unpleasant abuse at work. She was then contacted by her hospital trust. You might think it was a welfare check—but no. There was no mention of support after the racist attack. Instead, she was issued with a written warning, and the trust reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to investigate her fitness to practise, because she posed a risk to the public, it was said, and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient’s preferred gender identity. Only when Jennifer went public and the story hit the media did the trust say it would investigate the racist abuse. But by then, it had suspended Jennifer for telling her story. Then, they moved her to another hospital, demoted her to a lower grade, and she lost pay et cetera.
Now, I would have assumed that this shocking story would be a huge equality-at-work story for the trade union movement to take up: an ethnic minority female, a front-line health worker, a victim of explicit racist harassment and male violence, all over the papers, and then gross discriminatory employer behaviour. But no, not a dicky bird: a deafening silence in the nursing unions and the TUC. Maybe Nurse Jennifer was, as an open evangelical Christian, rather than a trade unionist, the wrong kind of victim.
Recently, we heard that another nurse, Sandie Peggie, a Royal College of Nursing member for 30 years, has been forced to sue her union for its failure to support her or provide legal assistance when she was suspended by NHS Fife. Her crime was that she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, a biological man, in the women-only changing rooms at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. That Nurse Peggie’s legal action is necessary should shame the trade union movement. As Mrs Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, explained, her client expected the union to
“exercise its industrial muscle to challenge the decision which was adversely impacting her and other female union members”.
She alleged that she
“spoke to the union about the issue of single-sex spaces in February last year”.
In relation to this amendment, how can we mandate employers to provide generous facility time for trade union equalities work with such a risible attitude to the real-life attacks on equality at work, as evidenced? When Nurse Peggie is forced to take legal action to get justice from her own union, I am not sure I want any more union equality officers. Susan Smith, of the For Women Scotland organisation that brought the successful Supreme Court action, notes:
“We imagine this is likely to be first of many such cases. Sadly, it seems that only financial penalties will persuade the unions to step up, do their job, and represent women in the workplace”.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which have been tabled in good faith and with good intent, aim to clarify employees’ rights for reasonable time off and to maintain a balance of obligation between employers and employees. However, this tempting repeated emphasis on balance and responsibilities risks adding unnecessary complexities to what should be a straightforward provision. The focus on sustainable assessments closely tied to individual circumstances, while well-intentioned, may create complicated decision-making for both the employer and employees, rather than finding the guidance we are looking for.
I am not a clairvoyant; I am summing up from the notes I have in front of me. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talk about linking facility time for equality representatives with statutory performance targets in the public sector—that is what the time off is for—to introduce additional conditions aimed at ensuring accountability. The proposal for a sectoral cost assessment before these changes take effect offers a measured way of evaluating their impact. It will be important to monitor how these conditions interact with the support available to employees’ representatives to maintain an efficient and effective balance.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments. I will not comment on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, tonight. I will leave that for the Minister to deal with.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their amendments and contributions to today’s debate.
I speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, where we seek to make the provision of facility time for equality representatives conditional on public sector employers meeting their statutory performance standards. I believe such amendments are not merely sensible but essential if we are to ensure that public resources are allocated responsibly and with accountability.
It is no secret—we hear it constantly—that politicians and civil servants routinely claim that they want to protect taxpayers’ money, yet too often the rhetoric is hollow and budgets expand unchecked. One glaring example is the unchecked proliferation of equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, roles in the public sector. For those unfamiliar, EDI is a branch of human resources. There are now some 10,000 EDI officers employed across public sector organisations. There has been a veritable explosion of spending that has occurred with minimal scrutiny or measurable outcomes.
Against this backdrop, it is right and proper to demand that facility time—a significant use of public resources—should be granted only to employers who are delivering on their statutory performance targets. Our amendments would introduce a performance condition that requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a public sector organisation is meeting relevant standards before facility time can be allocated.
I believe this to be a vital safeguard that Clause 62 as currently drafted just fails to provide. Clause 62 in its current form risks allowing facility time to be given indiscriminately, without regard for whether the employer is fulfilling its primary obligations to service users and taxpayers. That is a pretty laissez-faire approach, which I believe is unacceptable in an era of tightening budgets and growing demand for public services—no doubt we will hear much more of this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow morning. Without this condition, facility time risks becoming yet another unchecked entitlement, further diverting scarce resources away from front-line delivery.
We must be clear, however, that supporting and moving these amendments does not mean opposing equality representatives themselves or the very important functions they perform. Rather, it just means insisting that public funds should be spent prudently, and that facility time should be tied to organisational performance. If a public sector body is failing to meet statutory targets, I believe it is irresponsible to allow additional resource commitments without first addressing those failures. Moreover, our proposed new clause would require a sector-by-sector cost assessment of facility time, introducing much-needed transparency and evidence-based policy-making. Before expanding facility time or making it more widely available, Parliament must understand its real financial impact and weigh it carefully against the public benefits.
We urge all noble Lords to refuse to accept Clause 62 in its current form but to embrace these amendments, and then we will have a crucial performance condition. In that way, we will ensure that facility time is provided responsibly, with accountability, and only when public sector employers are meeting their statutory obligations.
However, I commend my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough on introducing what I felt were very reasonable amendments. Of course, he is drawing on extensive experience serving on council business and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, on which he served with such distinction, so I hope the Minister will accept those amendments.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I was appalled by the stories she gave, showing the experience of Nurse Jennifer and Nurse Peggie. They are shocking stories, and how right she was to bring them to the attention of the Committee. There is a great worry that somewhere, deeply embedded in the system, is systemic sexism. I suppose I am looking back—it is far too long ago—to when I was, and I think I probably still am, the only man to have been appointed Minister for Women in the Cabinet. I have to say that the experience I had in that position warned me of the impending problems about which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke so passionately and so clearly.
We really have to get something right. In many ways, I know that the Bill has been put together with great haste, but Clause 62 in particular at least requires amendment, or perhaps another clause more carefully thought through should be presented to the House on Report. That is why we look forward to hearing from the Minister. We are talking about not just good governance but a necessary step to protect both taxpayers and front-line public services.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for their amendments relating to the provision of facilities to trade union officials and representatives, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating debate on Clause 62, to which I will also speak.
In Amendments 224 to 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, he seeks to amend Clause 61 to maintain, as he argues, a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employees. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I take the amendments at face value: they are probing and not wrecking, and the noble Lord is trying to understand the appropriate balance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that the clause already seeks a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employee representatives. The paid time off that trade union representatives receive is often insufficient to fulfil all their trade union duties. Many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to support workplace relations. Indeed, in some sectors, in some companies, in some firms, their trade union activity is carried out very much on a voluntary basis rather than it being about people having full-time release and doing nothing towards the organisation apart from conducting trade union duties.
The Government want to rebalance obligations and responsibilities by ensuring that union workplace representatives are able to take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. While the clause grants trade union representatives the right to facility time and accommodation and other facilities from their employers, it does so by having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. The ACAS guidance will help employers to implement these measures and will be updated in partnership and through consultation with both employers and trade unions. It will therefore help to ensure that a balance of obligations and responsibilities is secured, and ACAS is a very appropriate and worthy organisation to undertake that role.
Greater facility time will lead to improved work representation and better industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. This will result in more mature industrial relations and increased co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for businesses and the economy. This is a framework to promote more co-operation and understanding at work, not more scope for conflict.
Amendments 234 to 236 concerning Clause 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, require that a performance condition must be met before facility time for equality representatives is provided by public sector employers. This would make the provision of facility time contingent on the employer already meeting certain performance standards, although the amendment is not specific about what those standards are.
We fully recognise the importance of strong public sector performance and accountability. However, linking facility time for equality representatives to performance conditions is both disproportionate and counterproductive, as it would create a barrier to improvement and creating stronger industrial relations. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to certify that a public sector employer is meeting relevant statutory performance standards before facility time can be granted. Together, they would pose heavy administrative burdens on both employers, who would need to apply and provide evidence, and central government, which would have to assess compliance for every employer.
I hesitate in suggesting this, but in speaking to other amendments on the Bill in Committee, those on the Benches opposite have been very quick to point out the administrative burdens that they assume are being placed on employers across all sectors by various measures in the Bill. The kind of burdens that this amendment would place on the public sector would not be tolerated by them on the private sector. More fundamentally, they would risk delaying facility time precisely for those organisations most in need of support and undermine the very purpose of equality representatives. Furthermore, a Secretary of State-led certification process would create legal uncertainty and potential disputes. It could also harm industrial relations in the public sector.
Finally, I turn to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to Clause 62. This clause inserts new Section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and requires that an employer must permit an employee who is
“a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and an equality representative of the trade union, to take time off during the employee’s working hours”
for specified purposes. However, this applies only if
“the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union”,
or will be undergoing or has completed training to become an equality representative. Sufficient training is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 62 also requires that the employer must permit the employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to the relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or to provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable. So far on those grounds, it is as for any other recognised rep status.
Trade unions have long fought for equality: from Grunwick to the Bristol bus boycott, to campaigning on Section 28, to recently standing up for retail workers—mostly female—who have to cope with violence in the workplace, particularly from customers. It is important to recognise, as, it is fair to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did in her remarks, that equality reps have a key role in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave some specific examples. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in saying that the cases the noble Baroness recounted, of Nurses Jennifer and Peggie, were horrific experiences you would not want to see anyone encounter. However, I am unsure that using that single brush to tar the feathers of the whole equality reps proposal is proportionate. There may be some correlation, but I am not sure that there is causation.
Clause 62 recognises a trade union equality representative as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules, in a manner consistent with the Equality Act 2010. I contend that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. It is pure speculation but, had equality reps been in place in local authorities in earlier decades, and had there been more awareness of inequality in women’s pay, those local authorities facing significant equal pay claims today might not be facing them. Who can say?
I am not sure how rhetorical the questions were from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the sort of equality. For the purpose of the clause, it is defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Turning to Amendment 237—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister asked a direct question, I might as well answer it now. I gave individual examples. I am sorry if the personalised examples made it sound as though they are one-off cases. I was simply trying to bring alive trends, not say, “Nurse Peggie”. There are loads of them, but I only had 10 minutes. They are trends, but I have brought them alive, I hope.
I ask the Minister to reflect on two things. As the Equality Act 2010 defines equality, I used the example that many trade unions are saying that they will refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court clarification of what equality means under that very Act. They are going to defy it in the name of equality—trans inclusion and so on. How do you square that circle?
Secondly, the Minister read out the points about training. In part, I was challenging whether the Government care what the content of that training is. My argument was that the training being used in the name of equality is divisive and may not be helpful in the workplace, and is in fact likely to turn worker against worker, rather than the reverse. Do the Government consider any of that, or do they just hand it over to the reps?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will try to address those points now. Of course we care whether reps, when undertaking any role—whether it is health and safety, learning, or workplace negotiation—comply with the law and are trained in a suitable manner. That does not mean we should necessarily be scrutinising every single thing they do, because one would not expect that in the normal way of things.
I certainly did not mean to belittle the examples the noble Baroness gave, and I am sure they are not the only ones. But at the same time, one cannot make the generalisation that this is endemic across all workplaces where there is union representation. I will also speculate —as we are sort of speculating here—that the engagement and involvement of equality reps might prevent the kind of activity the noble Baroness outlined in the case of Nurses Sandie Peggie and Jennifer. That is counterfactual speculation; one cannot say either way, but it is worth positing if we are serious about discussing this.
I should add, without wanting to stray too far from my brief and, indeed, land myself in some kind of legal hot water, that the Government’s expectation is that all organisations will comply with equalities law in every manner while carrying out their duties. Whatever equality law clearly specifies, we expect all organisations, employers and trade unions to follow that.
Baroness Verma (Con)
May I just ask the Minister a very small question? In business, we already comply with the Equality Act. Most businesses do it because it is mandated, but we would do it anyway because it is a good thing to do. Reflecting on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my only concern is the cultural sensitivities that may arise from equality reps taking into account, or not taking into account, some communities’ internal machinations regarding how they see certain equality roles.
Lord Katz (Lab)
For what it is worth, my experience of working in businesses is that most employers, large or small, understand the importance to the nuts and bolts of economic growth and productivity of having harmonious workforces and being respectful employers who listen to the needs of their workforces, however they manifest themselves.
Again—a hypothesis. I think I understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. In a workforce that largely comes from a particular BME community, but that has a management not of that community, the presence of an equality rep from the majority community in the workforce who can make representations concerning sensitivities around religious observance, modes of dress, and modes of communication, could be to the good for that workplace in creating a greater understanding between the management and the workforce. One is only speculating here.
Before the noble Baroness stands up again, as I sense she might, I will say that equality reps are a new idea. They already exist in voluntary organisations, but the Government think that it would be good for workplaces to have more of them in place and that they would promote more harmonious and productive workforces. I observe that having health and safety reps has led to better adherence to health and safety laws and regulations, with fewer issues with health and safety misdemeanours, accidents and the like in workplaces. Similarly, union learning reps have been a fantastic innovation in promoting learning and skills in different workplaces. The notion of promoting equality and cultural sensitivities in different workplaces, as the noble Baroness put it, is a noble aim.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I thank the Minister, but I think he is going to tie himself in knots on this one, because there are challenges that will not be rightly represented. To indulge the Minister, maybe I could have an offline conversation with him to explain where I am coming from.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy with that and I apologise if I have misunderstood the point that the noble Baroness was trying to make. This has been a fascinating debate but, in the interests of time, I want us to make progress and finish.
Amendment 237 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government resist this amendment, which unnecessarily asks the Government to conduct a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. We strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers. We have already conducted an impact assessment that covers the measures in the Bill. This assessment noted that the cost of facility time is not likely to be significant for particular employers. Instead, it could benefit business performance in the form of increased worker training and support greater worker retention through a reduction in dismissals and voluntary exits.
It is worth noting that the estimated percentage of public sector pay bills spent on facility time in the first year of reporting regulations that were enforced in 2017-18 was 0.07%, and that, for the 2023-24 reporting year, the figure was 0.06%. That suggests a minimal impact of facility time in the public sector. Before I turn to Amendment 333, it is worth saying that we expect further savings from the Exchequer resulting from more positive industrial relations, which come about through greater facility time. For instance, we expect enhanced facility time to result in a reduction in the number of disputes going to an employment tribunal. This again makes the point that more harmonious workforces are more productive workforces.
Amendment 333 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Again, the Government strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers and we have already conducted an impact assessment covering the measures in the Bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary and would simply delay the implementation of this clause and the benefits that equality representatives would bring.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, to withdraw Amendment 224 and I hope that noble Lords agree that Clause 62 has a rightful place in the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After section 219, insert—“219A Right to strikeEvery worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike).
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a bit daunting, at 9.50 pm, to speak to a series of amendments relating to the right to strike. I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking time out of her very busy schedule to discuss these amendments, and amendments on collective bargaining, with me last week. The meeting was very amicable and very constructive, but Members opposite will no doubt be pleased to learn that she yielded not an inch on these amendments. None the less, I think it worth while to advance them.
Amendment 238 is intended to confer a positive right to strike. Striking and other forms of industrial action constituted a criminal offence until 1875 and were subject to civil liability until the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Since then, the law has undergone various evolutions, until the Conservative Governments passed a series of Acts in the 1980s, consolidated in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which severely restricted industrial action.
Subject to those restrictions, the Court of Appeal in Metrobus v Unite in 2009 held:
“In this country, the right to strike has never been much more than a slogan or a legal metaphor. Such a right has not been bestowed by statute. What has happened is that, since the Trade Disputes Act 1906, legislation has provided limited immunities from liability in tort. At times the immunities have been widened, at other times they have been narrowed. Outside the scope of the immunities, the rigour of the common law applies in the form of breach of contract on the part of the strikers and the economic torts as regards the organisers and their union”.
As the Court of Appeal put it in RMT v Serco Ltd in 2011:
“The legislation therefore secures a freedom rather than conferring a right as such”.
Both judgments noted that the European convention and other international laws ratified by the UK protected the right to strike, but that was held to be insufficient to establish such a right in UK law. So there is no positive right to strike in the UK, merely a freedom to take industrial action, protection from what would otherwise be unlawful. My amendment proposes that we should have such a right. In making that case, I do not suggest that such a right should be free of limitations. If this amendment were adopted, the current statutory restrictions on its exercise would remain.
The international treaty obligations by which the UK has elected to be bound support the case for my amendment. The UK ratified ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise on 27 June 1949. The ILO, of course, is a tripartite body representing Governments, employers and workers of virtually every country in the world. Though Convention 87 does not expressly mention the right to strike, since the 1950s the relevant supervisory committees of the ILO have held repeatedly that it does so implicitly. For decades, member states have acknowledged that jurisprudence. For example, the UK Government have argued in the ILO:
“The right to strike, which, although not expressly laid down in Convention No. 87, was implied by the provision there for the right freely to organise activities”.
Independently of Convention 87, the ILO recognises the right to strike. A joint statement issued by the employers’ group, workers’ group and governmental groups in 2015 affirmed that:
“The right to take industrial action by workers and employers in support of their legitimate industrial interests is recognised by the constituents of the International Labour Organisation”.
I turn to other international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect freedom of association and the right to be a union member. In 2017, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of association stated:
“The right to strike is also an intrinsic corollary of the fundamental right of freedom of association. It is crucial for millions of women and men around the world to assert collectively their rights in the workplace, including the right to just and favourable conditions of work, and to work in dignity and without fear of intimidation and persecution”.
Article 8.1(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly requires
“States Parties … to ensure … The right to strike”.
In 2019, the supervisory bodies responsible for the two covenants I have just mentioned—respectively the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee—issued a joint statement on the basic principles of freedom of association common to both covenants, stating,
“the right to strike is the corollary to the effective exercise of the freedom to form and join trade unions”.
In 1997, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights addressed in relation to the United Kingdom the very issue raised by this amendment, holding that:
“The Committee considers that failure to incorporate the right to strike into domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the common law approach recognising only the freedom to strike, and the concept that strike action constitutes a fundamental breach of contract justifying dismissal, is not consistent with protection of the right to strike”.
This led the committee to recommend that the right to strike be established in UK legislation because
“the current notion of freedom to strike, which simply recognises the illegality of being submitted to an involuntary servitude, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 of the Covenant”.
In 2002, the committee reiterated its concern that
“failure to incorporate the right to strike in domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the Covenant”,
and repeated its recommendation that the right to strike be incorporated in UK legislation. It cannot be acceptable that the UK will not comply with these obligations.
At European level, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised in a succession of cases that the right to strike is implicit in the right to form and join trade unions, protected by Article 11.1 of the convention. The other instrument of the Council of Europe, the European Social Charter 1961, is more specific and provides in Article 6.4 that the contracting parties recognise
“the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts, including the right to strike”.
Not only is the right to strike incidental to freedom of association but it is a necessary corollary of the right to bargain collectively. Without power to withdraw their labour collectively, workers have no leverage against the much greater power of employers to set the wages, hours, and terms and conditions under which they labour.
The point was elegantly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case in 2015:
“The conclusion that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations is supported by history, by jurisprudence, and by Canada’s international obligations … The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction”.
Finally, in this survey, it is to be noted that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2022 provides in Article 399 that:
“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am going to speak on this even though it is completely pointless, as I feel quite strongly about it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am getting snarky comments from the Tory Front Bench. I object strongly to that.
I am speaking in support of Amendment 238, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, needs no support at all. This would establish
“a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike)”.
As the noble Lord pointed out at the start of his introduction, from the early 1980s onwards, we have had one set of anti-union laws after another, and there are now decades of them. Conservative Governments have introduced anti-union laws, and Labour Governments have mostly kept them. The result has been declining union membership and that the power of working people has been taken away. The UK has gone from being a country where income inequality was not that bad, and was even falling in the 1970s, to one where inequality has been rising sharply ever since. That means more billionaires and more money for the top 1% of earners, while more people exist on low incomes and live their entire lives owning nothing but debt.
Our economy has stopped working in the interests of the majority of people. Working people have less power but businesses and capital have more. That is one reason why in this country millions of pounds now disappear to offshore tax havens. The right of working people to withdraw their labour is a fundamental right, but it has been eroded. This amendment on the right to strike is another little step towards restoring the balance of power in the workplace. Without these little steps, which enable working people to stand up for themselves, this country will continue to get worse for the majority of people who do the real work.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want briefly to commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for putting this amendment forward. I have a lot of sympathy with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained some of my reasons for supporting it.
I just wanted to note that it is very tempting when rights are being taken away to want to consolidate them via the law and constitutionally. I felt it myself in relation to civil liberties, which I think are under attack: the right to protest and in particular free speech. I keep wishing there was a First Amendment, because then it would be there and they would not be able to attack it.
However—this a good faith question—when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, justify it in relation to international treaties, ECHR, the Council of Europe and so on, I started to worry that maybe this would become one of those treaties where it would be, “You can’t touch this” and you would end up treating it technocratically, as it were. Rather than it being fighting for the right to strike, it would be fighting for the principle of the right to strike with ordinary workers, rather than simply referring to defending it in the law. So can the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, even though he does not stand a chance of getting it through, reassure me that this is not just an attempt at ring-fencing a right, but then neglecting to fight for it in real life? I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this, because I really do feel that rights need to be protected under this Government as much as any other, I have to say.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, these amendments, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, are I think as people have outlined. I have been on the wrong end of that legislation on a number of events—official strikes, unofficial strikes and secondary picketing. As a shop steward you are responsible for taking those actions for a company; there are consequences and I have suffered consequences from that.
It is not that I agree with the rights being taken away, but I think times have changed and unions have moved on now. The right of anybody to remove their labour, if they are pushed to it, should be a universal right, but it should be used very sparingly and in very special circumstances. It is all very well rushing to legislation and quoting the European Court, but we live in the real world and when things happen to people at work and people are treated badly, sometimes we have not got time to go and contact the KC and get case law. We just do the things that we used to do and take that action straight away. Sometimes that resolves the matter fairly quickly, because a reasonable employer will see the action you have taken as a direct result of another manager doing something that was not in agreement. So I get the thrust of this.
I have had notes typed and I have been writing my own notes, but I think the top and bottom for me is the amendment is seeking to restore a trade union’s flexibility in choosing which members to ballot and removing some procedural requirements and obligations to notify employees in advance of ballots. I think that time has gone as well.
Reinstating rights for prison officers, the group currently subject to significant legal limitations, is one I would like to slightly explore. The intent behind these amendments is to strengthen trade union rights and promote collective bargaining. The concern is potentially around impact, industrial relations and public safety, especially with the actions of prison officers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to the Government that the way to protect prison officers is not to enshrine the right to strike but to remove the reasons why they would want to strike. That really is about improving the Victorian conditions that we have in 2025 prison systems, where people go into prison and come out worse criminals or nine out of 10 as drug addicts or whatever.
Governments, instead of trying to give extra law for prison officers, should be looking at the root cause. I know there is a prison plan being built and we are trying to get more education into prisons—if you want to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, he can give you chapter and verse on that, as I have listened to him doing. I hear why it is being done, I understand why it is being done and I know that it is not got a hope in somewhere else of getting through. But I thank the noble Lord for bringing it forward, because sometimes it is good to realise that things that we used to do are perhaps today not even politically correct to do. Human rights and the rights of people who go every day to work, to earn a living and support their family, need airing and need protecting. I know this is a probing amendment, but I thank the noble Lord for bringing it because it is interesting. Now and again it is good to be reminded of how it used to be and how it can be now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I thought it was a most interesting introduction and I learned a great deal. I particularly liked the phrase “constitutional benediction”, which I am planning to nick—although not in this context, because I rise to join the Minister and express my clear and firm opposition to the proposed new clause after Clause 64. It seeks to enshrine in statute a so-called positive right to strike even in breach of contract, as opposed—if I follow the noble Lord’s arguments correctly—to the freedom to strike. It strikes me as somewhat semantic in terms of the practical outcome, which I suspect is an argument we will hear again.
Let us be absolutely frank about what the amendment would entail. It would insert into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a wholly unprecedented and therefore dangerously broad provision that every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not it is in breach of any contract. It would not be subject to employer agreement or tethered to lawful procedures but would be an absolute statutory right to break contract terms and withdraw labour.
Industrial action, particularly strike action, is obviously a serious matter, and I think everybody would agree on that. It affects not only the employer but the public, the economy and, critically, the most vulnerable in society, who rely on public services. That is why we believe our existing legal framework strikes a careful balance. It protects the right to strike but does so within clear procedures and obligations: balloting requirements, notice periods and protections against unlawful disruption. This amendment would ride roughshod over all that.
What does it mean to have a right to breach your contract, regardless of process or proportionality? Surely, that is not a right; that is just carte blanche. This provision would displace the carefully constructed framework that governs how industrial action can be taken lawfully and responsibly. It would empower disruption without accountability. The purpose of employment law is not to tilt the playing field in one direction or another but to ensure that fairness, order and mutual obligations between employers and workers are respected. The right to withdraw labour must remain conditional on lawful procedures and not granted in the abstract, regardless of impact or legality.
Moreover, the proposed amendment would likely bring the UK into direct conflict with established contract law and create endless legal uncertainty. If workers are told that they have a statutory right to strike, even in breach of a contract, what does that mean for essential services, public safety, or the ability of schools, hospitals and transport systems to function with any consistency?
I do not think we should be mistaken. This amendment is not some minor clarification; it is a fundamental rewrite of the basis of workplace relations. It would undermine the principle that contracts entered into freely carry obligations and it would sweep away the balance between rights and responsibilities. I also have to ask: once a principle of contract breaking is established, how long before that is used as precedent in other contractual disputes?
Nobody denies that workers must be able to organise, speak up, bargain collectively and act where necessary. That is already protected in the legal framework. This amendment would take a sledgehammer to that balance. It would replace legal clarity, we believe, with legal radicalism, and accountability with absolutism. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reject the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendment 238, which would establish a broad statutory right to strike. I thank him also for our constructive and amicable meeting a few days ago and for his impressive tour of international conventions this evening. I have to say to him that anything I subsequently say does not mean that I do not take our international obligations seriously. In fact, in this increasingly uncertain world, we have more of an obligation to work collaboratively across countries. I think there is a lot to be gained from countries if we do that, not only on these sorts of issues but obviously on other issues of social justice as well.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Jones, for adding to this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. He raised some of the issues around prisons. I will be addressing those in the next group of amendments, but the point is well made that we certainly have to look after and defend our prison officers and recognise the service that they do for us.
The Government recognise the intention to reinforce protections for industrial action but it is important to emphasise that the right to strike is already protected under UK law, as set out in Sections 219 and 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provided clear conditions are met. Introducing a specific codified right to strike would cut across the uncodified nature of the UK constitution and lead to a far-reaching and undefined statutory right that risks legal uncertainty and conflict with long-established frameworks that carefully balance the rights of unions and employers.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support and her economic analysis of the consequences of the absence of the effective right to strike. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I am not sure I quite understood her question, but I am not trying to ring-fence an artificial, theoretical right. This amendment has purpose. I recognise the realities of the political situation in which we are arguing, but this right, were it to come about, would have practical, real consequences and continue what she described as the fight in real life.
The purpose of these international laws, of course, is to lay down minimum fundamental standards for the entire globe. Although some of them are quite ancient, dating to just after the Second World War, and while I accept that capitalism and the world of work have evolved, the fundamental nature of the entitlement to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike remains, and it is very important that we keep an eye on these international standards and the modern interpretation of them by the bodies which are charged constitutionally to interpret them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what I discerned was his support, in a way, at least for the principle. This is my fault entirely, but I was moving Amendment 238 only. I am afraid that he has the further ordeal of listening to me again for the range of further right to strike amendments, including that in relation to prison officers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his thorough response to my arguments. He can use the phrase “constitutional benediction”, but it is better coming from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I will not take up time dealing with all his arguments; the differences between us are self-evident. I just point out that a positive right to strike exists in virtually every country in Europe, and they do not have a difficulty with issues of breach of contract. Of course, the restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike differ from one country to another, but the positive right exists almost everywhere.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very full response. She says that a positive right to strike would cut across our constitutional arrangements. I just remind her that Section 220 of the 1992 Act provides a positive right to picket; if we can have a positive right to picket, I do not see why we cannot have a positive right to strike. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting for a moment an absolute and unqualified right to strike. Everywhere in the world that there is a right to strike, it is always subject to limitations, which differ from country to country. The question that these international bodies wrestle with day in, day out is whether the particular limitation is in conformity with whatever the international treaty is.
My noble friend asserts that we are in compliance with international law on this. We have to agree to disagree on that point. I do not believe that to be the case. Of course, I agree with her that this Bill is a great improvement on the law as it is at the moment, but she knows that my view is that it is not quite enough. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action (No. 2)(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) Omit section 223 (action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments would remove section 223 of the 1992 Act which renders industrial action unlawful if one of the reasons for the industrial action is that the employer has dismissed one or more workers for taking unofficial industrial action.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is now 10.22 pm, so I apologise for assaulting your Lordships’ ears with a series of amendments which also deal with the right to strike. Since time is precious, I have decided to focus on one amendment in particular and let the rest speak for themselves. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Woodley would speak to his amendment on prison officers, but he is unavoidably not in his place. I will deal with that amendment when I get to it.
I will focus on Amendment 240, which introduces six specific measures aimed at the restoration of statutory protection for secondary action. Again, I do not entertain a great deal of hope for this amendment—I am a realist—but I express my gratitude for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has added her name to it; for a briefing from the British Medical Association; and for the support of unions, including ASLEF, the BMA, the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the Fire Brigades Union, the RMT and the University and College Union.
Solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association and the right of workers to act for and on behalf of fellow workers, particularly fellow trade unionists. From 1906 to 1982, there was no legal distinction between solidarity action and other industrial action. The Conservative Government then introduced restrictions on certain kinds of secondary action, and in 1990 all statutory protection was withdrawn. The Labour Party strongly objected. In the parliamentary debates on the 1990 Bill, Tony Blair, then shadow Employment Minister, said in the other place:
“The abolition of sympathy action is unreasonable, unjustified and way out of line with anything that happens anywhere else”.
In relation to the proposal that all forms of sympathy and secondary action were to be forbidden, he said:
“That proposition is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable … that it is fatal to any pretence of even-handedness in the Bill”.
Compliance with international law is a duty incumbent on the state. Lord Bingham’s eighth principle of the rule of law is the obligation of the state and Ministers to comply with their international treaty obligations. In this House, last November, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said of compliance with international law that:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed the theme in a lecture to the Royal United Service Institute on 29 May this year in which he rejected “cherry picking” among international obligations. He continued,
“The argument … that the UK can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so, is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional tradition, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law … states can leave the treaties they have signed and agreed on. But the integrity and force of the system requires that once a party, to an agreement, they abide by its rules — they don’t pick and mix”.
It will be recalled that the Labour Party in 2021 adopted a Green Paper, Labour’s New Deal for Working People. It was integrated into Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People. It was explicitly referred to in the election manifesto and in the King’s Speech. The paper said:
“The laws regulating industrial action should ensure that UK law complies in every respect with the international obligations ratified by the UK, including those of the International Labour Organization and the European Social Charter, as reiterated in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union”.
The UK has ratified ILO Convention 87, which protects the right to strike. Since 1989, the ILO committee of expert jurists has reviewed the UK’s legislative restrictions on secondary action and held them in violation of ILO Convention 87. The committee held that secondary action should be permitted in three situations. First, where it relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either or both of the original dispute and the secondary action, and where the original dispute and the secondary action are not unlawful in themselves. Secondly, in any event, a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse, and workers should be able to take such action, provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful. And thirdly, furthermore, the restriction to disputes only between workers and their own employer
“could make it impossible for unions to take effective action in situations where the ‘real’ employer with whom they were in dispute was able to take refuge behind one or more subsidiary companies who were technically the ‘employer’ of the workers concerned, but who lacked the capacity to take decisions which are capable of satisfactorily resolving the dispute”.
That condemnation in 1989 has been repeated many times in the Committee of Experts’ observations on the United Kingdom, including in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013.
The other ILO committee, the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, has also condemned the UK in this regard, holding that:
“a ban on strike action not linked to a collective dispute to which the employee or union is a party is contrary to the principles of freedom of association, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes, as well as social and economic protest action, are protected under the law”.
In November 2023, that committee reviewed the P&O Ferries scandal, and among other things, held that:
“At the outset, the Committee recalls that a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful … The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the UK Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes were protected under the law … The Committee requests the Government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes, in conformity with freedom of association”.
The request was ignored.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is getting late—it is more than an hour and a half past my preferred bedtime—so I am going to show incredible restraint: although I have signed five amendments, I will speak to only three. I see that the Chief Whip is scowling at me even before I have started, so obviously I am going to milk it for all it is worth.
As a Green, I see that, with every decade of globalisation, this country has had less industry and more of our public services sold off to foreign owners. I do not understand why that has happened; it does not seem to be good business. The next step, of course, will be freeports, where basic rules and protections just disappear. That is where this country is heading. We need the return of strong trade unions to help turn the tide. Each of these amendments aims to give back the power that organised labour once had.
Amendment 239 would enable workers to act collectively if the employer has dismissed someone for downing tools. That person might have refused to work for all sorts of reasons: they might have been asked to do something dangerous, been asked in an abusive way or been asked to do something beyond their job description.
The Chief Whip is making me laugh now.
There are a lot of good reasons why somebody might walk out, and their colleagues can judge whether they are sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said he only really wanted to talk about Amendment 240. I agree that it is quite important because modern industry and services are broken up into small, interconnected companies and subcontractors, and it is essential that workers are able to bring their grievances to the attention of other workers in closely related workplaces. Employers do not like it because it is working people acting in solidarity with each other. It is one set of workers asking another set of employees to make their own decisions about which side they are on.
The idea of democracy does not stop at the ballot box, not that we would know much about that; it should be in the workplace as well. Last week, I met a trade unionist from Italy. He and his coworkers took over the GKN factory in Florence. They are trying to move as a co-operative working force from making parts for very expensive cars to making eco-bikes and solar panels. It is a fantastic opportunity, and I really hope they are successful.
Amendment 241 is the most crucial of these amendments as it restores the right of workers to take industrial action to be recognised as trade unionists. This is the most basic of rights, and it is shameful that a Labour Government have not put this into the Bill. What is Labour for if it is not about working people? Everything else, apparently.
The decline in trade unions has led to the growth of the gig economy and spurious self-employment. The age of secure employment and regular hours has become a fading dream for far too many. This amendment is another small step towards giving people some power in their workplace. Collective bargaining should be automatic in workplaces if a large enough group of employees want it. With so many employers unwilling to take that step, it is crucial that those employees have the right to strike and demand that recognition from an employer.
I would like a just and fair society. The richest 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 33.5 million people. How is that okay? I argue that it is not. Nothing in this country works properly any more because the gap between the richest and the poorest is increasing every single day. Those on a low income are being left behind and those on middle incomes are being fleeced by privatised services. Strong trade unions are one way of helping people find a bit of power and control in their lives—these amendments enable that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for bringing this into our debate but, candidly, his Amendment 240 is truly extraordinary. The only success Flying Pickets had was a number one in 1983 with the single “Only You”—and, by the way, that was a copy from the great band Yazoo. The idea that we would go back to flying pickets is just extraordinary.
Some 45 years on, no sensible Labour Peer has put this forward until tonight. I genuinely find it astonishing that we are here still debating the idea that it is democracy for a strike to be called somewhere else all of a sudden and for you to go off somewhere else for a dispute you are not part of.
While I appreciate the erudite speech we have heard tonight, going back to the real substance and principle of this, this is an important Bill. I do not agree with a lot of it, but I find it extraordinary that we are going back in time when this country actually needs to move forward in modern industrial relations. I regret the amendments that have been tabled today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment very briefly. I agree wholly with my noble friend Lady Coffey. I also agree that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was very persuasive, compelling, detailed and comprehensive, but completely wrong. It would be a disaster for our country if we were to go back to the era of Saltley coke works, Grunwick, the disaster inflicted on the automotive industry, flying pickets and the closed shop.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It seems to me that the key purpose behind this group of amendments is seeking to shift the balance of power a little bit more towards working people. I think you would find that many people in the country agree that that balance of power has swung too far against ordinary working people for too long.
I just want to very, very briefly say a word on Amendment 253 and underline the very grave sense of injustice that prison officers feel about the removal of what is a fundamental human right, the right to withdraw your labour, back in 1994. There is a sense that that did not in any way improve the Prison Service; I think many of us would agree that the Prison Service has subsequently faced huge challenges. We know of the huge problems that prison officers face very often, day to day, in their workplace: violence, poor conditions and vermin. I stress the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Given the grave sense of injustice that is felt by people who not only stand up for fellow workers as members of the POA but stand up for a service that we could become proud of as a country, a prison service that also, I hope, does the job of rehabilitating people, we must look to engage with the POA to find a remedy to the real sense of injustice that they feel.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will quickly follow and agree with my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their speaking against the amendments in this group. We feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s.
Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations that has served this country well for, now, over 30 years. I suppose the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with Amendment 239. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, described, this would remove Section 223 of the 1992 Act, which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action.
When workers engage in unofficial action—that is, action not sanctioned by their trade union and without proper balloting procedures—they are essentially taking the law into their own hands, so employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contracts in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences, and encourage workers to bypass the proper, democratic procedures that unions themselves have surely fought hard to establish.
Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals. It would restore secondary action, the ability of workers not just to strike against their employer over their conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that have nothing to do with their industrial relationships. A dispute between workers and one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers who have no stake in the original dispute.
The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace, rather than just their own. This opens the door to flying pickets and the mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend on workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure but mob rule. Furthermore, by changing the definition of trade disputes from those “wholly or mainly” relating to employment matters to those merely “connected with” such matters, this amendment would politicise industrial action. Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts, with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose.
Amendment 241 would restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers’ rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union, without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action. When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation, rather than informed by genuine worker preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands.
Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly technical change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advance notice to make contingency arrangements, to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate. In essential services—our hospitals, schools and transport networks—such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vital principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response.
Amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate completely different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. This strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another. They should not be bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership. Workplace-specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it, rather than being imposed by a union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda.
Taken together, these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent, when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands. We must not forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 1980s and 1990s did not destroy trade unionism; they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers’ rights. But rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges being exercised without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny. The right to strike is not an absolute right; it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards.
Moreover, these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges that face working people today. They would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead, as my noble friends pointed out, they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers that they purport to be helping. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper. Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos will drive investment elsewhere, taking jobs and opportunities with it.
I urge this Committee to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression, not liberation but license, and not workers’ rights but workers’ wrongs. We must maintain the balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well. Let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us hoped that we would never see again. The choice before us is clear. We can preserve a system that protects workers’ legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope that I know which path this Committee would choose.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his amendments on the right to strike and for raising the issue of prisoner officers’ right to strike, which was strongly debated in the other place.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has taken such a strident approach to the issues which my noble friends have raised. Although we do not necessarily agree with everything that my noble friend has put forward, I would say equally that we distance ourselves from the tone and attitude that has been presented by the other side this evening.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support, her attention to Amendments 239 and 241, and her economic analysis of inequality in the role of trade unions. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for developing that by explaining that the purpose of these amendments is to restore the balance of power somewhat.
I also thank her for dealing with Amendment 253 on prison officers. I feel somewhat guilty that I did not give due time to that subject in my speech. However, I note the additional point that prison officers in Scotland have the right to strike. It seems inexplicable to me that those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are deprived of it while those in Scotland enjoy it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her contribution. She did not deal with the requirements of international law; instead, she put forward a case that we have heard before, which in essence is that of special pleading that the circumstances of the United Kingdom justify non-compliance with international law. I do not think that that argument is capable of success.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, rather misunderstands the position of international law and the theory of dualist and monist regimes. The United Kingdom is a dualist regime. That means that the obligation of international law falls not on the citizens, corporations, trade unions or other bodies in the United Kingdom but on the state itself. The obligation to comply with international law is that of the state, not of the citizens within it.
The noble Lord mentioned the European Convention. That is somewhat different, because Parliament has made most of the European Convention part of UK law itself. That is a different thing altogether. I am not arguing that the provisions in international law that I have explained apply directly in the United Kingdom or in UK courts or tribunals. The obligations are on the state to conform to those obligations which it has ratified.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, regards these measures as a dangerous and retrograde step and regards the current regime over the last 40 years or so as being very successful. On the contrary, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in regarding the legislation of 1980s as having led to powerlessness, poverty, inequality, insecurity of work and insecurity of earnings. I disagree with his analysis, in which he describes the consequences of some mythical fantasy world of his own imagination. I say just this about the 1970s, as we do not have time to go into it: for all its faults, it was the most equal decade in British history for wealth and income. The consequence of the 1980s legislation has been to reduce collective bargaining coverage from over 80% to something like a quarter today, which is the essential cause of inequality and poverty.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her attentive and detailed response. Again, we must agree to differ in our conclusions, but I add that we cannot go on being damned year after year by these international supervisory bodies. There has to be some way of resolving Britain’s non-compliance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would reinstate the 50% threshold requirement for industrial action to be voted on by a trade union and seeks to understand whether the Government perceives a risk to the democratic integrity of trade union ballots for industrial action as a result of the provisions to remove the 50% requirement.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, an interesting night has been had by all. More ammunition has been thrown into the laps of these Benches than on any other night of the entire debate. Of course, that is called an unintended consequence—never mind. I rise to speak to the important group of amendments that address the key aspects of the industrial ballot process. I wish to highlight my own probing Amendments 244 and 246, which focus on maintaining a robust democratic mandate for industrial action and ensuring clarity around the ballot’s effective period. I thank the Ministers for making time to meet me last week to understand the rationale behind these probing amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing my amendments—she is my new best friend for at least the next 45 minutes.
Amendment 244 is a probing amendment that aims to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, questioning whether removing this requirement could weaken their democratic legitimacy. In the process, that could have significant consequences for workers, employers and the public. It is clear that the ballots genuinely reflect the clear will of the membership. That would seem obvious to me. We have spoken tonight about courts from all over Europe and the world, but there is another court: the court of public opinion. When you hear of people having strike ballots with percentage turnouts in the low 20s or 30s, you really must question the legitimacy of the argument for the ballot if you cannot at least get 50% of the workforce to take part.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 251A stands in my name. I draw the Committee’s attention to the interests I have disclosed in the register. I chair the operating company that runs London Luton Airport.
Much in the Bill is to be welcomed. It will deal with some of the manifest gaps in our framework of employment law and will strike a better balance of rights in the workplace. I strongly congratulate my noble friends on bringing this Bill forward. My amendment addresses the question of balance. Ministers have repeatedly emphasised the importance of balancing the need for better protections for workers and a simplified, less complex framework for industrial relations law with the legitimate and reasonable concerns of employers about flexibility and the regulatory costs of additional legislation. Being both pro business and pro worker is a laudable aim, but it will depend on this balance being properly struck.
I believe that Clause 71 as drafted does not strike the correct balance as it affects UK airlines because this clause directly, but probably inadvertently, brings into play in any future industrial action involving UK airlines the regulations concerning airline passenger compensation set out in what is known in the industry as UK261, which would impose potentially significant costs on airline operators in any future industrial dispute. This regulation gives passengers a right to compensation if a flight is cancelled fewer than 14 days before departure, unless there are, according to the regulations, extraordinary circumstances. Compensation can be anywhere between £110 and £520 per person, depending on the length of the flight, not the value of the ticket. Unions are required under the current law to give 14 days’ strike notice to any UK airline operator, allowing flights to be cancelled without incurring potentially enormous claims for compensation from passengers.
The regulations and the primary legislation are, in this context, extremely and entirely harmonious. Clause 71 would change the current careful balance and expose airlines to significant claims for compensation as in future if the Bill becomes law only 10 days’ notice of strike action would be required. An important ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that strikes by an airline’s own staff are not to be considered extraordinary circumstances under UK261, so we have an obvious problem. I cannot believe that Ministers intended this outcome because, put simply, there is no balance here. Uniquely in this sector, the law would discriminate against airline operators.
My amendment proposes a solution to this. UK airline employees should continue to be required to provide 14 days’ notice of strike action. I do not believe that my amendment raises any fundamental issues of principle. Trade unions should, and must, have the freedom to take industrial action, but employers also have the reasonable expectation that the law will remain neutral and will not favour one side over the other. I am afraid that Clause 71 does precisely that as far as the airline sector is concerned. If my solution is not considered acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I hope that she will be able to tell me how she plans to deal with this situation.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I am embarrassed to keep your Lordships even a few minutes more, but I stand to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Jackson in his opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and to introduce my own opposition to Clause 66 standing part. Thus, I go further than the noble Lord Goddard, even though I very much support his words.
Why is Clause 65, in combination with Clause 66, so damaging? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to focus on the democratic legitimacy of the provisions of Clause 65, but there is a further, even more key, set of problems with these clauses. With noble Lords’ permission at this very late hour, for which I apologise, I will give a very brief review of the history.
Let us first look at days lost to strikes in the 1970s. In 1970, 10 million days were lost; in 1972, 24 million days were lost; and in 1979, 30 million days were lost during the winter of discontent. We consequently had the Thatcher reforms, which outlawed secondary action, banned strikes conducted for political reasons, regulated picketing, required secret ballots for strike action, and made trade unions legally accountable for actions taken in their name. This enabled unions to restore control and reduce the number of unofficial strikes, which had been a major source of the growth in strike activity in the 1960s and 1970s. The result, post-Thatcher through to the 2020s, was that, on average, less than half a million days a year were lost to strikes. Industrial peace was a direct consequence of those reforms. There were no more winters of discontent. This was enormously valuable, for example, for the Blair and Brown Governments of the noughties.
Let us note that the Government’s Bill seeks to eliminate very few of those specific Thatcher reforms. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which we have just discussed, made an attempt at that; I am glad to hear the Government sensibly decline his invitation. However, even though the Government apparently see the sense of leaving most of the Thatcher reforms in place, they seem, in Clauses 65 and 66 in particular, to be looking to find other ways to unionise the private sector landscape.
If the Government succeed in that, there will be inevitable consequences for the UK’s economy. Last week, it was observed that unions are currently mostly confined to the public sector in the UK, but nobody asked why that was so. It is obviously because public sector workers have a monopoly of employment, so can enforce their will, and timid Governments seek to placate them so as to be able to appear, at least, to be in charge. What is the impact of this? They are multiple public sector strikes and excessive wage settlements in the public sector, the costs of which are now directly leading the Chancellor to her current dilemma of a runaway deficit, plus underserved public services such as social care and child welfare, and an impending debt crisis.
What will Clauses 65 and 66 collectively do to the union landscape in the UK? Clause 65 removes Section 226(2)(a)(iia) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, meaning that for the ballot to be valid, you no longer have any floor for the percentage of employees voting. Clause 66 alters subsection (2)(a)(iii) so that only a majority of those voting would be required for a strike to go forward. One businessman whom I spoke to just today was utterly startled by this news. He runs an SME employing 36 workers. If, say, one-third of them—12 people—vote, and only six of those 36 employees vote to strike, then you have a strike. It is not hard to find six out of 36 employees to vote for a strike.
However, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, democratic? Will the electorate’s heart warm to this quantitative gerrymandering? As I described just now, we all see the impact of unionisation in the public sector. What will happen in the private sector if this Bill, in the undemocratic manner that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has so rightly decried, passes?
I described last week in this Chamber some of the past, when unionisation destroyed industries such as the London docks, and the present, when the public is tormented by public sector strikes ranging from dustbins to doctors and from teachers to train drivers. This present-day public sector malaise, if it spreads to the private sector, will, as my noble friend Lord Hunt made clear, take us straight back to the 1970s and the winter of discontent.
If the Government are, sensibly, really not proposing to change much of the Margaret Thatcher reforms, which have brought industrial peace to the private sector at least, why is there any need to bring in these new anti-democratic changes? Do the Government really think that allowing strikes to go forward, with feasibly only 10% or even less of employees voting for the strike, will be seen by the public and indeed by the other 90% of the employees of that company as anything but outrageous and leading to even more strikes, even more outrageous wage settlements, even more yawning deficits, even, dare I say, a very large and this time real economic black hole?
If the Government proceed with these changes, the inevitable consequent industrial strife will be laid at their door. The Labour Party saw what happened to it in the 1979 election as a result of the winter of discontent. Why is it now seeking a similar fate in 2029? I urge the Government to withdraw Clause 66 and indeed Clause 65.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments that I have signed. I do not actually wish to add anything on Amendments 244 and 246 as what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, said was straight to the point. I agree with him absolutely on those matters.
I just want to briefly turn to the Clause 71 stand part notice and Amendment 251A from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, explained it very eloquently. Why, when we are getting into this level of legislation, does it really matter about going from 14 days to 10 days? Actually, it does. There are wider consequences of some of these legal changes which need to be recognised in terms of the practicality of some of this legislation. It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister why that particular move is being made.
The other reason I oppose entirely Clause 71 standing part—to be more accurate, it is probably about subsection (1)(b)—is the categories and the NHS and trying to prepare for strikes. You never know exactly how many people will go on strike when you are running a hospital or other parts of the NHS. Having a clear sense of what capability you are still going to be able to run is critical for patient safety and for patients getting better.
I hope that the Government consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when it comes to the airline industry. I hope Ministers will also carefully consider the NHS in their deliberations, because that genuinely can mean the difference between life and death or, to be less dramatic, whether a whole series of operations will need to be cancelled for many patients across the country. I genuinely believe, recognising that health unions are currently issuing ballot papers, that Ministers should be carefully considering what impact this new clause would have.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hutton. I will come back to their amendments shortly.
I will speak to Amendments 245, 251B and the question of whether Clause 68 should stand part, which is tabled in my name. On the clause stand part, this clause represents a dangerous step backwards. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, objected to it in the sense that he thought it might introduce a lack of clarity. But the fact is that the clause itself is a step backwards in transparency and democratic accountability that this Committee must not allow to pass unchallenged.
The provisions that Clause 68 seeks to remove, notably subsections (2B) to (2D) of Section 229, are not bureaucratic obstacles but fundamental pillars of informed democratic participation. They require that voting papers should include a summary of the dispute, specify the types of industrial action proposed and indicate when such action is expected to take place. These are not unreasonable burdens. They are the basic information any voter needs to make an informed decision.
Democracy thrives on transparency, not opacity. When we ask working people to vote on whether to take industrial action—a decision that may affect their employment, their families’ livelihoods and their future prospects—surely they are owed the courtesy of clear, comprehensive information about what they might be voting for.
Consider the absurdity of what this clause actually proposes. It is a ballot paper that asks, “Are you prepared to take part in industrial action short of a strike?” without specifying whether this means a work-to-rule, an overtime ban, a refusal to cover additional duties or any combination of actions. How can any reasonable person make an informed choice without knowing what they are agreeing to participate in?
The Government may well argue that these requirements impose administrative burdens on the trade unions, which is an argument we have heard on a couple of groups tonight. But since when did we consider informing voters to be an administrative burden rather than a democratic duty? We would not accept a general election ballot that failed to specify what office candidates were seeking or what their party stood for, so why should we accept industrial action ballots with less information?
Furthermore, these information requirements serve to protect union members themselves. Clear information helps ensure that workers understand not just what they are voting for but the potential consequences of their actions. This protects both their interests and those of their unions by reducing the likelihood of disputes over the course, scope or nature of mandated action.
Turning to Amendment 245, I agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I will speak to this amendment, although I must emphasise that my primary concern is not with the amendment itself but the Government’s fundamentally flawed approach to this critical issue. To be absolutely clear, the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots should be maintained. This threshold exists for the very good reason that it ensures that strikes and other industrial actions have genuine democratic legitimacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, and that they represent the will of a substantial portion of union membership and not merely an activist minority.
If the Government are determined to weaken these democratic protections, and regrettably it appears that they are, they must not compound this error by hiding behind secondary legislation. Businesses across this nation deserve better. They need to know the regulatory framework within which they will operate—a theme to which we have returned a number of times through the Bill. They cannot plan for investment, assess risk or make employment decisions when fundamental aspects of industrial relations law are left hanging in regulatory limbo. The Government’s approach creates precisely the uncertainty that undermines economic confidence and job creation.
I urge the Government to reconsider entirely and maintain the 50% threshold to provide the certainty that businesses need and the democratic legitimacy that industrial action requires. If the Government insist that they are going to lower the threshold, which we think will be disastrous, it should be in the Bill, so that we can scrutinise it fully, which is what my amendment would ensure. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, a 20% threshold could lead to only 10% of a workforce supporting strike action. The House deserves the opportunity to examine and debate such fundamental changes properly and not have them smuggled through in statutory instruments with minimal parliamentary oversight.
I will speak very briefly to Amendment 251A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I could not agree with him more. It would be a very regrettable error if the Bill were to inadvertently introduce an unintended consequence of potentially swingeing fines for airlines, for reasons that are not really any fault of their own. It is to be supported, and I hope he will return to the theme.
My Amendment 251B proposes a modest but vital extension, from 10 to 14 days, of the notice period required before industrial action can commence in the railway sector, for slightly different reasons. This is not an attempt to restrict workers’ rights but rather a recognition of the unique role that our railway system plays in the economic and social fabric of the nation. The railway network is not just another industry. As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, it is the circulatory system of the economy and it moves millions of passengers and vast quantities of freight every single day. When railway services are disrupted, the effects cascade through every sector of society, from healthcare workers unable to reach hospitals to students missing examinations and businesses losing millions in productivity. The current 10-day notice period that is proposed is simply insufficient for the complexity of railway operations. I could go on, but I think I have said enough on the subject.
Four additional days may seem modest, but, in the context of the operations of the railway and airlines, it represents the difference between chaos and managed disruption. It allows time for proper contingency planning, for negotiations to continue and for the travelling public to make alternative arrangements. With that, I shall wind up, but I hope the Government are paying attention and will at least listen to these carefully considered amendments.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Goddard of Stockport, and my noble friends Lord Hutton of Furness and Lord Hendy for tabling amendments on the subject of industrial action ballot mandates, thresholds and notice. Despite the late hour, I recognise that there is significant interest here. I will try to do justice to all those amendments and to the opposition to certain clauses standing part of the Bill.
Before I go into the detail, I want to make it clear that a lot of what we are discussing relates to the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment for this Government. I think it is worth framing why that is the context. This does, in a way, speak to a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. Far from supporting the economy, the strike legislation in the 2016 Act that we inherited from the then Opposition did not actually prevent strikes. In 2022, we lost more days to strikes than France. In 2023 and 2024, NHS strikes alone cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
The noble Lord and others keep referring to the 2016 Act, but the amendments that we have been addressing in this section are all amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Lord Katz (Lab)
With respect, there are definitely elements in the group of amendments we are talking about that relate to the 2016 Act. I was simply setting out the context for my remarks. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me make some progress, and, if he is still not satisfied towards the end of the speech, we can spend a bit more time on this.
As I was saying, 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022, and these were the highest annual number of working days lost to strikes since 1989. Put frankly, the 2016 Act did not achieve its objective of reducing strikes—in fact, it made things worse.
Amendment 244, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, both seek, in different ways, to remove the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold. The Bill as drafted repeals this threshold in its entirety, returning us to the situation pre 2016, where only a simple majority of members voting in favour of strike action was required for industrial action to be deemed lawful.
We want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. In combination with the delivery of modern, secure workplace balloting, we hope that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support.
I turn to the opposition to Clause 66 standing part. In answer to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this clause does indeed seek to amend Section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to reverse the change made by Section 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 226 is amended to omit subsections (2A) to (2F), thereby removing the requirement for industrial action ballots in six defined public services—health; fire services; education for those aged under 17; transport; decommissioning of nuclear installations, management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security—to have the support of at least 40% of those entitled to vote for the industrial action in order to be valid.
Alongside Clause 65, which removes the turnout threshold, a trade union will need only a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action for the industrial action to be deemed lawful. This was the case prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. This clause is a key part of the Government’s agenda. Again, I want to be clear that this is part of our commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.
I turn to Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and will speak to the opposition to Clause 69 standing part of the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to retain the current six-month mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot. The Government want to strike the right balance between ensuring that industrial action is based on a recent vote and reducing the need for re-ballots. Strike action is always a last resort; it is costly to workers as well as employers. For this reason, we consulted on the appropriate length of time before a trade union should re-ballot its members.
In that consultation, trade unions were very keen to have no need to re-ballot for a mandate at all. However, following the consultation, the Government have set the mandate period at 12 months, because the majority of industrial action concludes within that time. This will ensure the appropriate balance between reducing the costs of re-balloting and allowing mandates to continue for longer where they are likely to have continued members’ support, without prolonging disputes or permitting action to be called based on a more than year-old mandate. Retaining the six-month mandate period would prevent the Government delivering on their commitment substantively to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.
I turn to the opposition to Clause 68 standing part from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The purpose of this clause is to reduce the information that unions are required to include on a voting paper for industrial action, through repealing Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 2016, which introduced additional requirements into Section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 5 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to include on the ballot paper a summary of the issues that are in dispute between the employer and the trade union; the type of industrial action that amounts to action short of a strike; and an indication of the time period during which it is expected that those specific types of action are to take place.
Repealing Section 5 will not remove all the information requirements. Under Section 229, the ballot paper will still require unions to ask their members on the ballot paper whether they support industrial action and which type of action they want to take part in, expressed in terms of whether it is strike action or action short of a strike. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, made an analogy with ballot papers not containing details such as the names of candidates or the nature of the election. I respectfully point out that there is a danger in that analogy; I do not think it is fair. After all, noble Lords opposite would not expect democratic elections for elected office to carry the kind of mandate threshold that they are insisting trade union ballots should have. Whether they want to make the analogy that democratic elections are like union ballots or not, there is a bit of a pick and mix going on—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is fair enough; I accept the noble Lord’s point when it comes to general elections but, in effect, this is a referendum, which is usually much more clear-cut.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The point remains that there was not a threshold mandate for the few referendums that we have had. I maintain my point that ballots and elections are not really analogous, and there is danger for everyone in trying to compare the two.
The removal of the initial requirements imposed by the 2016 Act will reduce the red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution.
On the opposition to Clause 69, the purpose of the clause is to amend Section 234 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to change the mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot from six months to 12 months without the possibility of extension, which we have already discussed in Amendment 246. Among other things, the clause brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 and many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decision of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.
Amendment 249, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, would require unions to publish results of industrial action ballots on a publicly accessible website, removing the current obligation to notify individual members and employers directly. The Government recognise that the current arrangements can impose a communications burden on trade unions, especially where first-class post is used to provide the notification to members and employers. However, removing the requirement to send direct notification risks reducing the accessibility and certainty of this information to those entitled to receive it. In our view, it undermines transparency and thus confidence in trade unions and the balloting process. Relying solely on a website assumes that members and employers will proactively seek out information, which could lead to disputes over whether that proper notification has occurred. Direct notification ensures clarity and transparency.
To address concerns about the administrative burden associated with these communication standards, the Government intend to update the Code of Practice: Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers to encourage the use of email in place of posts where practicable. This approach preserves the principle of direct communication while reflecting modern methods of engagement and reducing administrative costs. For these reasons, I am afraid the Government do not support this amendment.
Amendment 251, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, seeks to simplify requirements on trade unions when issuing notices. While the Government understand the desire to streamline procedures, these notice provisions serve a vital purpose in ensuring that employers have the necessary information to plan for and respond to industrial action. The Government are already reducing the minimum notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, and removing the specific requirements that unions must provide in notice for industrial action, such as to disclose the number of employees in each category. This amendment risks removing too much detail, potentially leaving employers unclear on the nature, scale and timing of the action being proposed. Again, I am afraid, this is why the Government do not support my noble friend’s amendment.
The last amendments in this group are Amendments 251A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, and Amendment 251B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government do not support either of these amendments because our general position is not to make sectoral carve-outs from the limitations and conditions which apply to industrial action. This is consistent with our repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action and ballots in the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act that set further conditions on industrial action in some public services. The same statutory notice period for industrial action across all sectors ensures a simple rule that is clear for all parties involved and that applies in all circumstances. It is then for employers in each sector to manage their industrial relations and their businesses accordingly. However, my noble friend Lord Hutton has some specific concerns around the airline industry and we are happy to meet to understand these concerns further.
The issue of the Clause 71 standing part of the Bill was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Alongside our manifesto commitment to repeal the 2016 Act, the Government are committed to bringing in a new era of partnership that fosters meaningful engagement between government, employers and unions, and this is grounded in co-operation and negotiation. We recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action while also ensuring that employers are able to reasonably prepare for industrial action when, sadly, it has to occur—I should say when workers have voted for it to occur.
Clause 71 makes targeted changes to Section 234A of the 1992 Act to simplify the process by which trade unions provide that notification. Specifically, we are removing one element from the current requirements: the need to specify the number of affected employees in each job category. Employers will continue to receive essential information, including the overall number of employees affected, the categories they belong to, and the workplaces concerned. This strikes a sensible balance between reducing bureaucracy and enabling employers to plan to mitigate the impacts of industrial action.
Clause 71 also reduces the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 and, consequently, Section 8 of the 2016 Act will be repealed. Moving from a 14-day notice period to a 10-day notice period provides a more flexible, workable approach that reflects modern industrial relations practice.
We acknowledge that some groups argued for a return to the previous seven-day notice period, and that others have called for the current 14-day period to be retained. In our view, 10 days represents a balanced compromise. It is the appropriate balance in allowing employers the ability to plan to mitigate the impact of and reduce the disruption and knock-on impacts of strikes, while respecting the right to strike. It reflects consultation feedback, and allows employers time to prepare, while reducing the burden and uncertainty faced by trade unions. Taken together, these reforms simplify the industrial action framework and reduce unnecessary burdens and legal risk for trade unions.
Finally, Clause 72—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I particularly focused on the NHS. I was not trying to see it as a sector—I was thinking of the categories and the number by category. I appreciate it is late, so if the Minister wants to write to me, I would be happy to receive that.
Lord Katz (Lab)
For the sake of brevity and time and all of us staying awake, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness.
Finally, Clause 72 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 10 of the 2016 Act, removing the requirement under Section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other administrative burdens in relation to this supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police.
As the period of disruption that I have already referred to between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions.
However, the Government recognise that regulations regarding picket lines are important. To be clear, the Bill is repealing only those measures introduced by the 2016 Act in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location and must be peaceful, and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when it was working well and was understood by all parties.
In summing up, I hope my justification for these clauses and how they meet the Government’s intentions has been clear to noble Lords, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw Amendment 244.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply and thank other speakers who have spoken in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, talked about balance, in airlines and other industries. Balance runs through the conversation on this group of amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, is always good value. He throws all these numbers at us and gets very agitated, but he wants the balance to be right between the trade unions and not to swing the wrong way to the other side, and he gave us the history of what happens when that happens. I understand what he is saying and I thank him for his contribution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, almost used me as a Trojan horse, but I accept that, because her intervention was exactly on pitch. She speaks about clarity, honesty and the NHS. Again, there are many instances in this group that touch all parts of the country, from aviation to the NHS and back again.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made his position very clear. He wants transparency and responsibility, and he really wants to know where the reasonableness is in the Government’s reluctance to accept these amendments.
Today could be a watershed, because the debates we have been having as Report looms could be where some of these battle lines will be drawn. These are fundamentals. It is fundamentally not right that 50% to call for a ballot is unreasonable. All I am asking is for the Government to take back the comments we have made tonight and, when we return on Report, show some cognisance and understanding that these are not just anti-union amendments. We support the unions, but they have to be seen to be democratic and accountable to the wider public. I hope that they take my comments and criticism in the way they are offered: to help to make a better Bill that is more acceptable to everybody.
I will read the Minister’s comments in Hansard, because he went through at a canter. I was a bit concerned when he talked about balloting being a positive modern experience. I have always found it to be the opposite: it is soul destroying to vote for industrial action.
With the benefit of the doubt, this party will listen and hope that the Minister has taken on board some of our positive criticism tonight before we come back with this set of amendments. These amendments, among all the others, could be the contentious ones, and the Minister has the opportunity to lance that boil early. Getting tonight’s amendments right will go a long way to making this Bill work fundamentally better for employees and employers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.